Arun Kumar Jha, J. – The learned senior counsel for the appellants has been heard on the point of admission on the last date of hearing and I intend to dispose of the instant second appeal at the stage of admission itself.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2013 passed by learned IInd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Title Appeal No. 44 of 2010/67 of 2010 confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2010 passed by learned Sub Judge-IV, Bhabhua in Title Suit No. 195 of 1996, whereby the whereunder the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants.

3. The appellants are legal representatives of the original plaintiff who brought a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and also for restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in peaceful possession over the suit property. At the same time, defendants also claimed declaration that the door opened by the plaintiff in common wall appurtenant to Plot No. 490A and Plot No. 490B was illegal and for the closure of the same at the expenses of the plaintiff.

4. The admitted case of the parties before the learned trial court was that the suit land originally belonged to one Gajju Sah. A sale deed No. 3188 dated 11.11.1944 (Ext. 11/Ext.A) was executed by Gajju Sah in favour of Prem Chand Pandey and Sarad Chand Pandey, both sons of Deo Nath Pandey for land of holding no. 86. Further case of the plaintiff was that his ancestral house was situated on holding no. 87 of ward no. 2 and holding no. 86 was adjacent west to it. Further case of the plaintiff was that the construction of houses on holding no. 87 and 86 was in such a way that two rooms of the house of the plaintiff having area 9’ (north to south) x 11’ (east to west) and 8’ (west to east) x 11’ (east to west) were embedded in the construction of holding no. 86 from the western side. On the other hand, two rooms situated on holding no. 86 having area 14’ (north to south) x 11’ (east to west) was situated at the northern side of the room of the plaintiff measuring 9’/11’ and adjacent to it the second room on holding no. 86 measuring 14’x11’ was situated. This room of holding no. 86 was adjacent to second room measuring 8’x11’ of holding no. 87. Further case of the plaintiff was that Deo Nath Pandey executed a sale deed dated 16.01.1956 (Ext.13) on behalf of his above named two minor sons in favour of father of the plaintiff. The aforesaid property came into possession of the plaintiff. After passage of some time, both the rooms of the ancestral house of the plaintiff and his purchased two rooms which were temporary structure fell down and whole land became ‘Sahan’ (open). The plaintiff used to gain access to this open land from eastern side of his northern room. Thereafter, all the houses situated on holding no. 86 fell down in 1958 and said land got amalgamated with the land of the plaintiff measuring 45’(north to south) x 11’ (east to west) making a contiguous block on the north of holding no. 86 and the plaintiff and his ancestors came into possession to the knowledge of all for more than 12 years after 1958. Further case of the plaintiff was that the defendants got executed a sale deed on 05.09.1972 (Ext.A/1) by Prem Chand Pandey and Sarad Chand Pandey with respect to suit land of holding no. 86 and it included the purchased land of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has further claimed that Ext.A/1 is illegal and against the real position of the land. In the sale deed (Ext.A/1), northern arm of the purchased land is said to be 40 feet whereas it is only 31 feet which includes the land of the plaintiff. Southern arm is 16’6”, eastern arm is 85’6” and the western arm is 82’6” but the defendants wrongly got the length of the land mentioned in their sale deed as 89 feet and also showed a wrong boundary. The defendants have been claiming that the purchased land of the plaintiff measuring 45’x11’ is situated to th