Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The respondents were issued notices to engage another counsel vide Court’s order dated 7.11.2012, pursuant whereto notices sent to respondents 1 and 2 on 22.11.2012. Perused office report dated 13.2.2013. Service is deemed sufficient. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondents, hence I proceed to hear the appeal ex parte against respondents.

2. The following two substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court while admitting appeal:

A. about the interpretation of the sale-deeds which are the documents of title of the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellant.

B. the lower appellate Court has not considered material evidence on record which was relied upon by the trial Court even though it was passing an order of reversal.

3. Besides above, during course of hearing, in my view, another substantial question of law has arisen, which is:

C. Whether lower Appellate Court has rendered its judgment consistent with Order XLI, Rule 31 C.P.C.?”

4. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Hanuman Prasad instituted suit No.88 of 1973 for demolition of construction raised by defendants in plot No. 71/1, area 3 decimal, shown with letters ‘Ka’, ‘Kha’, ‘Ga’ and ‘Gha’ in the site plan and also for decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with possession of plaintiff on the land in suit. As an alternative relief, possession of the land in question was also sought.

5. The plaint case is that, the suit land actually belong to defendant 2. Sheo Balak Ram Tewari, defendant 2, who was in actual possession thereof, had executed a sale-deed in favour of plaintiff and his brother. Founded thereupon, the two became bhumidhar of the suit land and also got possession thereof. The boundary of suit land was given in sale-deed. The western wall, shown with letters Ka, Gha in the site plan, in the plaint, was also included in that area of three decimal, transferred to the plaintiff and his brother. In fact the western wall was constructed by plaintiff over the land it has purchased from defendant No. 2. The plaintiff subsequently learnt that defendant No. 2 executed another sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 1 about the part of the same land which was already sold to plaintiff though he had no right or authority to execute such a sale-deed. Pursuant thereto, defendant No. 1 has started digging foundation and raising wall though he had no authority to do so and since is interfering in the possession of the plaintiff on the land in dispute, hence necessitated institution of suit.

6. The defence case, in short, was that no cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 constructed a wall having contact with wall of Satya Narain, which run from south to north towards west and further constructed wall running east to west. The defendant No. 2 executed a sale-deed of part of the land which is three decimal in area of plot No. 73/1 of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff got a wrong boundary written in the sale-deed taking advantage of illiteracy of defendant No. 2. In the sale-deed of plaintiff, northern boundary of house of defendant No. 2 has wrongly been written. The defendant No.2 executed sale-deed in favour of plaintiff from south to north, which was actually agreed between the parties. The defendant No. 2 thereafter executed another sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 1 of the land covering one and half decimal in area which is just towards south of the southern wall of defendant No. 2 and towards north to the land of the plaintiff. The possession was already delivered to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff is not the owner of land Aa, Ba, Sa, Da.

7. The Trial Court formulated nine issues but for the purpose of present case, issues No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are relevant which read as under:

3. Whether the plaintiffs bhumidhar of 3 decimal land of plot No.73 as alleged?

4. Whether the construction in suit lies in plot No.73?

5. Whether the wall in suit towards West running n