J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Court below, the plaintiff has preferred the above Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are called as per their rank in the suit.

3. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title over the B schedule property, possession and for mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment and the wall constructed on the B schedule property.

4. It is relevant to state that the B schedule property is an integral part of the A schedule property. The A schedule property was purchased by the brother of the plaintiff on 09.12.1987. There was an oral partition between the plaintiff and his brother and the plaintiff had constructed the house on the northern side and his brother constructed house on the southern side of A schedule property. The plaintiff's share lies on the south side of the defendant's property. According to him, he had left a lane with 5 feet breadth on the northern side. This was encroached by the defendant and the lane was reduced to 2 feet from 5 feet breadth. Aggrieved over the same, he issued notice and filed a suit for declaration an