Arun Kumar Jha, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the point of admission.

2. The appellant has filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhpura in MTA No.9 of 2013 whereby while dismissing the appeal, the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 22.02.2013 and decree dated 06.03.2023 passed by the learned Munsif, Sheikhpura in Title Suit No.18/2010.

3. From the records, it appears the appellant was plaintiff before the learned trial court and the appellant before the first appellate court.

4. The appellant and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 purchased a piece of land each on Plot No.439 and several other persons have also purchased the land in the said plot. The purchased land of the appellant is stated to be 75/32 decimals and the respondents’ purchased land is 13 decimals. The case of the appellant is that the house of the respondents is situated in the northern boundary of the house of the appellant and both sides have entered into a written agreement dated 05.12.2002 that the appellant would leave 1 feet land in his north and the respondent no.1 would leave 15 inch land in his south and in that manner they would construct their houses. The open space of 27 inch between the houses of the appellant as well as the respondent no.1 would be used as alley for air and light and both sides agreed not to open any eaves (chajja). Though the appellant abided by the terms of agreement and erected his wall leaving 1 feet of the land, the respondents while constructing the first floor, projected 18 inch of their roof on 15 inch of their earlier left land and also 3 inch on the land of the appellant. This extension of 18 inch through projection of the roof on first floor is the bone of contention in between the appellant and the respondents.

5. On the other hand, the respondents have denied the agreement dated 05.10.2002. The respondents have further submitted that when they started constructing their house, they left two and half feet open space towards south which was from north to south and further left 25 feet space from east to west open on their own land for air and light. Further case of the respondents is that the appellant taking undue advantage of his being in police force encroached upon the land of the respondents and started construction work and erected the wall on the said land.

6. The learned trial court framed nine issues and after consideration of evidence dismissed the suit of the appellant. The plaintiff-appellant moved before the learned first appellate court which recorded finding that the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower court were legal and valid and went on to dismiss the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant. The order of the learned appellate court has been assailed in this second appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned trial court did not frame the issues properly based on the pleadings and the learned appellate court did not take this fact into its consideration. Both the courts below did not consider that as the issues were not framed properly, the evidence was not read in proper perspective and, thus, a wrong finding was arrived at by the learned courts below.

8. The learned counsel further contended that the learned appellate court has not considered each and every issues while recording the judgment of affirmation. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned appellate court was required to appreciate the evidence vis-a-vis the issues framed and a duty was cast upon the learned appellate court which it has failed to discharge. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned appellate court in paragraph 31 has summarized its finding basically relying on the discussion made by the learned trial court on the documents and t