The central legal point established in the judgment is the preclusion of the plaintiffs by law from claiming the disputed site, based on the interpretation and application of relevant sections of the Land Revenue Act.

Gruer, J—This was a suit brought toy the plaintiffs-respondents against the Secretary of State for India in Council for a declaratory decree that two sites covered by part of plaintiffs' house and the eastern chabutra included in nazul khasra Nos. 3201 and 3210, as shown in red lines in plan A attached to the plaint, belonged to the plaintiffs, and not to the defendant as nazul or part of the road. In the trial Court the claim succeeded with regard to the strip of land in plot No. 3201, and that finding has not been challenged by Government, and so stands good. The claim with respect to the chabutra covered by No. 3240 was disallowed, but plaintiffs successfully appealed to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Damon. The present second appeal has been lodged by Government in respect of this chabutra only, which covers an area of 12 feet x 44 feet, and lies on the eastern side of plaintiffs' house, where it faces the Hatta Road. The plaintiffs asserted that this site was included in the land which they bought from one Balramdas by sale deed dated 17th September 1907. Balramdas had obtained the plot (then No. 506) in malik makbuza rights from Government in exchange for another plot, and sold to the plaintiffs the northern portion, in which plaintiffs' house now stands. Plaintiffs asserted that the plot extended on the east up to a tamarind tree, which has since been pulled down, and that they have committed no croachment; that the entries in Damon town khasra of 1913 inconsistent with their claim are wrong, and so they were not bound to obey the notice of the nazul officer that they should dismantle the chabutra as an encroachment on the road.

2. On the other hand, defendant's contention was that Balramdas had no right to this disputed portion, nor was possession given to the plaintiffs; the measurements of their sale deed were denied; the tamarind tree spoken of fell within the limits of the road; Balramdas was aware of the defect in his title to the land adjoining the road as the wording of the sale deed shows. Defendant relied on an admission of plain, tiffs made in Ex. D-7, an application and map submitted to the Municipal Committee, in which the distance from the eastern boundary to the edge of the road was given as 22 feet. Defendant has also pointed out that plaintiffs' claim to possess a plot 86 feet X 46 feet under the sale deed would give them .09 acre, whereas in the settlement of 1912 he was given a parcha for .06 aore only : Ex. P.21. It was held therefore in the trial Court that Section 222, Land Revenue Act, debarred the plaintiffs from now pleading title to this site. This plea was not upheld by the lower Appellate Court, which, on a consideration of the somewhat; conflicting oral and documentary evidence, found that this fell within Balramdas's plot, which he had a right to transfer to plaintiffs, and there has been no encroachment on nazul land. The recitals in Balramdas's sale deed given to plaintiff Khalilulla were held to be by way of caution only, and the reason given for not applying Section 222, Land Revenue Act, was that no notification or demarcation of the land in suit as waste land appears to have been made as required by law. These are the points which are again agitated in this Court.

3. Owing to lapse of time, apparently there is no definite evidence about the position and boundaries of plot No. 506 when Balramdas got it from Government. The evidence about the existence of the encroachment is also conflicting. The fact that the width of the road has varied from time to time complicates matters; and another difficulty is that (as can be seen from the plans Exs. P-30 and P-31) the disputed chabutra stands opposite the road junction so that the western boundary of the road at that point can be ascertained only approximately; and similarly what point should be taken as the centre of the road there is open to doubt. As these plans show, the chabutra might be only an encroachment in differen