JUDGMENT Mr. Justice Newbould, J. - This appeal arises out of a dispute between uncle and nephew over a small strip of land valued at Rs. 35 only. One Nilamber was the father of the Plaintiff and the grandfather of the Defendants 1 and 2. In the year 1291 B. S., Nilamber executed a deed of gift in favour of the Plaintiff by which he gave him Plot Nos. 1 and 3 of the plaint. At that time Nilamber was living in Plot No. 2 which is to the east of the Plot No. 1 and between these two plots there was a passage which Nilamber expressly reserved to the width of 21/4 cubits. After Nilamber's death, the Plaintiff inherited 1/3 of the property left by him and another brother of the Plaintiff and the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 got the remaining 2/3rds share. After the gift to him the Plaintiff built a house on Plot No. 1 and according to the Plaintiff he left another foot of land enlarging the passage to the east. In 1308, the Plaintiff executed a kobala (Ex. A), on the construction of which the decision of this appeal depends. By this kobala the Plaintiff conveyed a 1/3rd share in Plot No. 2 and in the passage and his interest in Plot No. 3. So far there is no dispute. The point in dispute is whether the Plaintiff reserved to himself any portion of the passage between his house and Plot No. 2, the house in which Nilamber lived. The first Court found that the Plaintiff transferred only that portion of the passage which he had inherited from Nilamber. The lower Appellate Court has found that he has transferred the whole passage. In my opinion the lower Appellate Court is right. Though the deed refers to the Plaintiff's 1/3rd share in the passage, there are other statements in the deed which are inconsistent with the Plaintiff having reserved any land to the east of his building for himself. The western boundary of the land conveyed is stated to be the Plaintiff's bari; and had any portion of the passage been reserved, that would have been stated to be the western boundary. Also in the deed, reference is made to the lane east of the Plaintiff's homestead which is to be west of the property sold. The western boundary of the land conveyed is stated to be the Plaintiff's bari; and had any portion of the passage been reserved, that would have been stated to be the western boundary. Also in the deed, reference is made to the lane east of the Plaintiff's homestead which is to be west of the property sold. This also suggests that the whole of the passage and not a part of it was sold. Also the doors of the Plaintiff's house are described as being to the west of the property sold. Another point is that the Plaintiff by the deed allowed the Defendants to close the doors of his house leading to the passage which one would not have expected him to do if the Plaintiff himself owned a strip of land along the passage. And again, the Plaintiff reserved the right-and this is the only right that he expressly reserved in connection with the passage-to place scaffolding for building purposes in the passage when necessary. Had the Plaintiff reserved to himself any right to the passage, I cannot believe that he would not have mentioned it in the deed of sale. The passage reserved by Nilamber was stated to be 21/4 cubits wide and the measurement taken by the Munsif shows that the present passage is only 3 to 61/2 inches wider than this. This is inconsistent with the Plaintiff's story of having added a breadth of one foot to the passage and rather points to the dimensions given by Nilamber having been a rough estimate not based on measurement with a standard cubit. It cannot be said that by the kobala the Plaintiff clearly transferred only such land as he had inherited, as the land of Plot No. 3 of the plaint was transferred by the same kobala and that is admittedly land which is included in the deed of gift. For the above reasons, I think that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in holding that, on a proper construction of the kobala (Ex. A), it must be held that the whole of the passage was transferred to the Defendants. The appeal, therefore, fails. The Defendants have taken a cross-objection to the finding of the lower Appellate Court with reference to an obstruction which they have made at a point marked A on the map attached to the plaint. A), it must be held that the whole of the passage was transferred to the Defendants. The appeal, therefore, fails. The Defendants have taken a cross-objection to the finding of the lower Appellate Court with reference to an obstruction which they have made at a point marked A on the map attached to the plaint. The Munsif dismissed the suit as far as this particular relief was concerned and the Plaintiff did not file any cross-appeal or take cross-objection under Or. XLI, r. 22, C. C. P. The circumstances of the case were not such as to justify the lower Appellate Court in interfering with the Munsif's decree in this respect under r. 33 of Or. XLI, C. P. C, and following the decision of the Court in the cases of Gangadhar Muradi v. Banabashi Padihari 22 C L. J. 390 (1914) and Abjal Majhi v. Intoo Bepari 20. W. N. 542: s. c. 22 C. I. J, 394 (1915), I hold that the cross-objection taken must succeed on this point. 2. The result is that the appeal is dismissed and the cross-objection allowed. The decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is modified to this extent that the order declaring the Plaintiff's title and right to khas possession of plot A will be expunged. The Respondents will get their costs both in the appeal and the cross-objection. The Plaintiff then preferred this further appeal under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent, which was dismissed with costs and the judgment of Mr. Justice Newbould upheld. The JUDGMENT OF THE COURT was as follows:- This appeal is dismissed with costs. J. N. R. Appeal dismissed with costs.