JUDGMENT P.K. Kaul, J. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal in a suit for partition and for demolition of certain constructions made by the Defendants on an open portion of the joint land. It arises on the following facts: Parties to this appeal belong to the same family. They own some joint land in which each of them is entitled to one half. A building was constructed by the Plaintiff on part of the joint land and it is in his occupation. The Defendants have also built their house adjoining that of the Plaintiff and they live in it. It appears that for some time past Hari Singh Defendant No. 2 had been living in some village other than Nibari where this land lies. He returned to Nibari a short while ago, and in 1947, when civil courts were closed for summer vacation, started making some constructions on that portion of joint land which was still unoccupied and was lying open. The Plaintiffs protested against this but, he would not listen. The matter was reported to the police and the police tried to stop Hari Singh, but he did not care. As soon as the civil courts opened after the vacation the Plaintiff instituted the suit which gave rise to this appeal. On 26-7-1947 a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from making further constructions was issued and a commissioner was appointed to inspect the locality and make a report. The commissioner's report was that the constructions appeared to have been made during summer vacation when the civil courts were closed. 2. The Defendants pleaded that there had already been a partition of the joint land between the parties and hence no fresh suit for partition could lie. They further pleaded that the land on which constructions were made was allotted to the Defendants' share. This defence was found to be untrue. Accordingly having regard to the high-handedness of the Defendants the trial court ordered demolition of the constructions shown by letters A.B.C.D., on the commissioner's map, and passed a preliminary decree or partition. The learned Munsif held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a half share in the entire property and directed that, so far as possible, he should be allotted the northern portion and the Defendants the southern portion of the house-item No. 1 of the plaint. 3. The Defendants filed an appeal against this decision. The learned Munsif held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a half share in the entire property and directed that, so far as possible, he should be allotted the northern portion and the Defendants the southern portion of the house-item No. 1 of the plaint. 3. The Defendants filed an appeal against this decision. The lower appellate court confirmed the finding of the trial court that the alleged previous partition of the joint property was not proved, and the Plaintiff was entitled to get a decree for partition of the residential house and the Sehn land. It further observed: "The parties do not want that the partition wall which already existed in the house should be disturbed. The Plaintiffs are in possession of the northern portion while the Defendants are in possession of the southern portion. The area of the Defendants Appellants share inside the residential house is much less than their share. Both the parties have rebuilt the portions which are in their possession and so no question of estimating the value of the materials would arise". It however set aside the order of the trial court directing; demolition of the constructions A.B.C.D. On the other hand it directed that the constructions made by the Defendants and the land underneath them shall be allotted to their Qura. It confirmed the preliminary decree for partition passed by the trial Court. 4. Dissatisfied with this decision the Plaintiff Mool Chand has preferred this appeal. It was contended by his learned Counsel that the Defendants had forcibly taken possession of the open land which was in common enjoyment of both parties and made constructions thereon in spite of his protests. That they did so when the civil courts were closed, so as to make it impossible for the court to give the Plaintiff adequate relief and allot to him that portion of the open common land which having regard to the situation of the residential houses of the parties, should reasonably be given to him. The learned Counsel strenuously urged that no party should be allowed to take advantage of its own high-handedness so as to confront the court with an accomplished fact, and made it impossible for it to give appropriate relief to the aggrieved party. The learned Counsel strenuously urged that no party should be allowed to take advantage of its own high-handedness so as to confront the court with an accomplished fact, and made it impossible for it to give appropriate relief to the aggrieved party. The Defendants chose a time for making their constructions when the civil courts were closed and the Plaintiff could not prevent them from making constructions by obtaining an injunction or seek other remedy. He therefore approached the police, the police tried to intervene, but the Defendants would not pay heed to the police either, and proceeded with their construction work so that when the commissioner appointed by the court to inspect the locality and make a report reached the spot, he found that the constructions were complete. His report however, was clear that the constructions had been made during the summer vacation. It was contended in these circumstances, that the Defendants should not be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong and that if it was found that the land on which the Defendants had made their recent constructions should reasonably be allotted to the Plaintiff the constructions should be abolished. 5. It was contended for the Respondent in reply that in such cases inspite of the highhandedness of one party, the court should be guided by two considerations: (1) which course would lead to least inconvenience to the parties, and (2) even if a certain course causes some inconvenience to one party whether such party cannot be adequately compensated otherwise than by demolition of the building constructed by the other party. According to him it is the balance of convenience which should be the guiding principle in such cases. In support of this argument he relied on Chhedi Lal v. Chhotey Lal 1951 A.L.J. 196. It was observed in that case that no inflexible rule could be laid down in such cases and each case must be decided on its own facts. I respectfully agree with the law as laid down in that case. The difficulty is not about the correct view of the law applicable. The difficulty lies in applying the law to different sets of facts. It cannot be denied that the Defendants acted in a very high-handed manner. I respectfully agree with the law as laid down in that case. The difficulty is not about the correct view of the law applicable. The difficulty lies in applying the law to different sets of facts. It cannot be denied that the Defendants acted in a very high-handed manner. They started construction of their rooms when the courts were closed for the summer vacation and the Plaintiff could not get immediate relief by obtaining a temporary injunction or in any other manner. He approached the police and the police tried to intervene but to no purpose. The Defendants continued to build and completed their constructions with unseemly hurry and have made it impossible for the Plaintiff to get a portion of the common land on the northern side which would be in front of the house which the Plaintiff occupies. In these circumstances if it is found that the Defendants have by their high-handedness made it impossible for the Plaintiff to get that portion of the joint land which should reasonably have been allotted to him if the constructions recently made by the Defendants had not been made, the constructions should be demolished. No one can be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and prejudice the other party's rights by his high-handedness. I am not oblivious of the fact that courts of law sit to enforce justice and not to enforce discipline. It is the function of the civil courts to determine the rights of the parties and grant relief, not to mete out punishment. 6. It is noteworthy however, that in the present case the Plaintiff has already appropriated to himself in the form of the site of his house a much larger area of the joint land than is covered by the Defendants' house. Each party is admittedly entitled only to one half of the joint land including the sites of their houses. They further appear to have agreed before the lower appellate court that the common party wall existing between their houses should not be disturbed. So all that remains to be done is to divide the joint land which was lying open till the Defendants started their new constructions. They further appear to have agreed before the lower appellate court that the common party wall existing between their houses should not be disturbed. So all that remains to be done is to divide the joint land which was lying open till the Defendants started their new constructions. On a rough calculation of the area which each party should get out of this land it was noted that the Plaintiff would, in all probability, at an actual division, be found entitled to only a narrow strip of land. The Plaintiff must further have a passage from his house, to land beyond what is commonly owned by the parties. Obviously if the Plaintiff can get a reasonable passage from his door to the area beyond the joint land, without demolishing the new constructions they may be allowed to stand. The new constructions should not be demolished merely because they were constructed against the Plaintiff's will and without his consent. They should be demolished only if the Plaintiff's rights are prejudiced by the recent constructions. The lower appellate court has indicated the manner in which the partition should be effected. It observed: I have drawn a red line X. Y. Z. on the commissioner's map. The Amin should draw this line at such a place so as to make . the area of the Quras of both the parties equal. If there be any particular difficulty at the spot in allotting equal share to each party, the trial court will have the option to allow compensation to one party from the other. Thus the result is that the order of demolition of constructions A.B.C.D. must be set aside. I therefore partly allow this appeal and the decree of the lower court is modified to this extent that the Defendant's constructions A.B.C.D. would not be demolished but the land over which they stand shall be allotted to Appellants' Qura. The preliminary decree for partition of Plaintiff Respondents' half share in the property is otherwise confirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal. The record be sent back to the trial court for preparation of a final decree according to the direction given above. 7. It is not quite clear what the learned Judge meant when he directed that the trial court would have the option to allow compensation to one party from the other. The record be sent back to the trial court for preparation of a final decree according to the direction given above. 7. It is not quite clear what the learned Judge meant when he directed that the trial court would have the option to allow compensation to one party from the other. Was it intended that one party should get money compensation from the other for any deficiency of land in its Quras. If this is what was intended, I am unable to upheld this decision. The Defendant cannot be allowed to take forcible possession of joint land and then to compel the other party to be content with money compensation in lieu of part of its share of the land. Two points have to be borne in mind (sic) that the Plaintiff is entitled to a half share of the joint land and (2) that the share of land allotted to him should give him a reasonable mentis of access from his door to the area beyond the joint land. It is difficult to say how the Quras will actually be prepared. But in a division of joint land the two points mentioned above must be kept in view. 8. The decree of the lower court is accordingly modified in so far, that if while keeping the above mentioned two points in view it is not possible to effect a partition of the joint land on the lines indicated by the lower appellate court without demolition of the recently made construction (A.B.C.D.), so much of it shall be demolished as may be found necessary to effect the partition. I it is possible to effect such a partition on the lines indicated by the lower appellate court or otherwise without demolition, the recently made construction shall not be demolished. As already observed earlier in effecting the partition the Plaintiff should be given his proper share of the joint land and this should be done in a manner so as to allow him a reasonable means of access from his exit door to the area beyond the joint land. 9. The appeal is therefore partly allowed and the decree of the lower appellate court is confirmed subject to the modification indicated above. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.