The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving title to the property and the existence of dominant and servient heritage in property disputes, particularly in the context of claiming easementary rights.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant is aggrieved against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 211.1994 in Civil Original No. 86/1982 and dismissal of his appeal by the appellate Court vide Judgment and decree dated 011.1998 in Civil Appeal No. 3/1995

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for injunction and possession on the grounds that the plaintiffs were the owners of share in the property and a patta in the name of the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1s father Himata, with Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant No. 1 and one Bheema Ram was issued as back as on 24.02.1944. The Defendant No. 1 and above Bheema sold their 3/4th share to the plaintiffs on 24.08.1966 vide registered sale-deed. The patta dated 24.02.1944 is Exhibit -1 and sale-deed is Exhibit-2 submitted by the plaintiffs before the trial Court. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants removed the northern wall of the house and reconstructed the wall and opened windows and doors in the said wall abutting over plaintiff s property. The plaintiff s case is that the plaintiff s brother was sick, therefore, they were not in the village, therefore, the defendants could raise construction of the wall. When the plaintiffs family members objected about illegal acts of the defendants, they took opportunity and initiated proceedings under Sections 107 and 116, CrPC in the Court of SDO, Sojat in absence of the plaintiffs against the plaintiff s family members and thereby the defendants harassed the plaintiff s family members. Be it as it may be, the

case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants removed the wall and raised the construction of new wall by encroaching upon the land of the plaintiffs, therefore, they are entitled to decree for removal of encroachment of the defendants form the portion marked as AEFB in the map annexed with the plaint and further sought relief of closure of windows and doors.

4. The defendants submitted written statement and firstly they denied the sale which they made in favour of the plaintiffs and secondly, they took a plea that wall between the two houses was in existence which was constructed by the defendants about 25 years ago and they opened three windows as mentioned by the plaintiffs and also opened the doors at that time. The defendants denied that they opened the doors or windows on 010.1982.

5. The trial Court framed the issues and thereafter, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by the impugned Judgment and decree dated 211.1994. Aggrieved against the Judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 211.1994, the plaintiffs preferred appeal which too was dismissed on 011.1998 by the first appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs.

6. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the defendants denied the sale-deed dated 24.08.1966 in their written statement but in the evidence DW. 1 himself admitted the sale-deed dated 24.08.1966 and, therefore, the entire claim of the defendants that they raised the construction of wall 25 years ago stands falsified.

7. It is also submitted that when Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 are admitted documents of the defendants, then the two Courts below failed to read the full contents of these two documents which clearly show complete description of the property.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellants stated that the first appellate Court seriously erred in holding that simply because there is no mention in the sale-deed that the house was sold with the wall to the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are owner of the wall in dispute.

9. It is also submitted that when the defendants plea that they raised the wall 25 years ago could have been a valid plea provided they would have proved that they did not sell the share in house to the plaintiffs on 24.08.1966. Once this fact is established that the defendants sold their share in the house t