The plaintiff who has lost in both the Courts below in the suit filed by him for a declaration that a strip of land should be kept vacant as a common lane for repairs and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction for the removal of a staircase which had been built thereon and of a trough, some iron hooks, etc., is the appellant in this Second Appeal. There was also a prayer for a declaration of the plaintiff’s ownership of a wall shown as A B C in the plaint plan. So far as the ownership of the wall is concerned, there was no serious contest about it and the Courts below have upheld the plaintiff’s claim in respect of the wall. This Second Appeal relates only to the other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff with reference to rights over the site A B C C1 B1 A1 in the plaint plan.

A perusal of the judgment of the Courts below shows that the plaintiff has put forward a case far reliable to a larger extent than the easement rights he may be legally entitled to and appears to have asserted more or less a claim of a ownership in the site in question. This has been negatived by the Courts below. The. structures in question have been found to be existing for over 15 to 20 ye