A denial in a written statement must be specific, but this does not mean that every allegation in the plaint should be reproduced at length in the written statement for the purpose of denial. The main allegations on which the suit is based must be expressly denied.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and other reliefs in respect of an open space called a lane and the right to discharge water therein as also in respect of certain walls. An injunction was also prayed for. The suit was resisted by the defendant, who denied all the allegations of the plaintiffs.

( 2 ) THE houses of Gopaldas, plaintiff No. 1 and Champabai plaintiff No. 2 are adjoining each other and they are separated by a narrow lane from the defendant's house. A sketch was filed with the plaint and it is convenient to refer to the letters used in that sketch, The plaintiffs' case is that the walls AE, EF and fd, which are almost in continuation, belong to them that the lane demarcated by the letters EFHG is a joint property of the parties and the plaintiffs have a right to discharge water in that lane through five spouts in their houses and in the alternative, a right of easement is claimed for discharging water in the lane through the (sic)cts. The defendant has constructed a wall in the lane and it is prayed that it be dismantled.

( 3 ) THE trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' suit holding that they could not prove their case. On their appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Gwalior held that the walls were proved to be of the plaintiffs, and that the lane EFHG was proved to be a joint property of the parties. He, therefore passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The Court did not decide the question of casement as it became unnecessary.

( 4 ) SHRI Mungre, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant contends that the judgment of the first appellate Court is not in accordance with law inasmuch as it did not consider the whole of the evidence on record; that it erred in law when some of the denials made in the written statement were treated as implied admissions and that the site plan which the learned Judge of the first appellate court himself made on a site inspection, was used beyond permissible limits. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondents I have formed the view that the judgment of the first appellate Court must be set aside.

( 5 ) IN paragraphs 1 and 2 the plaintiffs allege that the lane (EFHG) is a joint property. The defendant denies this. In paragraph 1 of the written statement be admits that in the west there is an open space (lane) but he denies that it is joint (par mujhe mistarka hona manya nahin ). It may be noted that in paragraph 1 of the plaint there is no specific allegation that it is joint property except in the description of the boundaries "pashchim: gali mustarka fariquain wa baadhu makan pratiwadi". Even so, the defendant makes a specific denial and this only shows his vigilance. Then in pant No. 2, of the written statement is is stated that the open space intercepting between the two houses cannot be called a lane; and the defendant asserts that the said space was not joint 'yeh gali (khuli jagah)mushtarka nahin hai'. It is true that in paragraph 4 of the plaint the plaintiff states that 5 spouts discharge water in that open space "which has been in joint use", and the defendant merely replies that this paragraph is denied. It cannot, however, be said that there is any 'admission' in view of the denials and assertions in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the written statement. In paragraph 4 of the written statement it is also denied that the sports are 'pushtaini (ancestral ). There is no denial about the existence of the spouts and the defendant can be deemed to have admitted their existence.

( 6 ) SIMILARLY in paragraph 5 of the plaint it is asserted that the wall ABCD belongs to the plaintiff exclusively and the defendant has wrongly described in the sale-deed the walls AF and FD as joint. The defendant denies the allegations in these words: "paragraph No. 5 is denied. " In my opinion, it is not correct to read these denials as implied admissions. It is provided in Order 8, Rule 5 that the defendant must in the written statement either