JUDGEMENT :- This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for removal of a construction made on 8 sq. yards of land of the patri of the road in front of the plaintiffs house. The Municipal Board, Bilandshahr, is the first defendant and the second defendant is the person who has raised the constructions sought to be removed. The suit has been dismissed by bath the courts below. Hence, the second appeal.

2. The plaintiffs came to court with the allegations that they have a single storeyed Pacca house on plot No. 285 abutting on the police-line road at Bulandshahr; that the second defendant had also filed a suit No. 543 of 1964 in the court of 1st Additional Munsif, Bulandshahr, against the present plaintiffs in which she had obtained an interim injunction against them and under the cover of that injunction, she had erected the two storeyed house on some 8 sq. yards of land belonging to the plaintiffs and some 27.7/9 sq. yds. of land in front thereof on the road patri which the defendant Municipal Board had purported to let out to the second defendant under a resolution dated 29th Nov. 1961. It was pleaded that the defendant Municipal Board had no right to let out the land forming part of road patri to the second defendant and the second defendant had by raising a construction thereon narrowed the road by which the plaintiffs were specially aggrieved inasmuch as they had their house at that very place abutting on the road. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs had suffered special damages. They even claimed a decree for damages in the sum of Rs. 100/- for the loss suffered by them. It appears that the Patta granted by the defendant-Municipal Board to the second defendant was later on cancelled. The plaintiffs claimed the relief of demolition of the construction on the road patri as also on the 8 sq. yards of land claimed by them to be theirs, and for possession over that 8 sq. yards of land along with the damages in the sum of Rs. 100. Both the defendants contested the suit. The defendant-Municipal Board pleaded that 27.7/9 sq. yards of land had validly been let out to the second defendant by a registered Patta dated 5th August, 1964, under the Boards resolution dated 29th Nov., 1961, with the permission of the District Magistrate which was obtained on 28th April, 1964. The second defendant also claimed on the basis of the said Patta and pleaded that no part of the land occupied by her belonged to the plaintiff and further that she did not remove any flooring; that there was no door of the plaintiffs house opening on the road in question and it was only out of enmity that the plaintiffs had filed the suit.

3. The trial Court framed as many as seven issues. On issue No. 2, it held that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the 8 sq. yards of land shown by the letters ABLG on the plaint map; on issue No. 6 that the land in suit is nazul land; on issues Nos. 1, 3 and 7 that the defendant Municipal Board had a right to grant Patta of the land; that there was no evidence to show that the Patta had been cancelled, and at any rate, the Patta having been cancelled, according to the plaintiffs, after the completion of the constructions, they could not be demolished because of the doctrine of factum valet; and that the plaintiffs did not suffer any special damage by reason of the disputed constructions and had, therefore, no right to maintain the suit. No arguments were addressed before the trial Court on issue No. 4. Even so, the trial Court decided the issue which was whether the plaintiffs had any cause of action against the defendants in the negative. In the result as already noticed above, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

4. Before the lower appellate Court, the first point which was raised for its determination was whether the plaintiffs are owners of any part of the land in suit, the reference being to the 8 sq. yards of land, shown by the letters ABLG on the plaint map, claimed by the plaintiffs to be theirs. This point was decided aga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document