JUDGMENT : Rao, J. - Plaintiffs file this appeal against the confirming judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Dhenkanal dismissing the Plaintiffs suit for a declaration of their title to the suit land and the house. 2. Defendants 1 to 3 contest the Plaintiffs suit alleging that the suit land is a communal land and that the Plaintiffs have no manner of individual right to the said land or the house standing thereon. They also contended that the Plaintiffs did not build that house, but that the house was built by their father who is the fourth Defendant in the case. The Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 filed Title Suit No. 5 of 1945 against the father Defendant No. 4 on behalf of the entire village community for ejecting Defendant No. 4 in that suit from the suit land. That suit was decreed. Therefore Defendants 1 to 3 who are the Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 5 of 1945 take up the contention that this suit is filed by the Plaintiffs only for the purpose of avoiding the decree against Defendant no 4 against whom these Defendants 1 to 3 have already obtained a decree for ejectment. 3. Both the Courts below came to a concurrent finding that the Plaintiffs failed to prove that they constructed the suit house. This alone is enough to dismiss the Second Appeal. But Mr. M.S. Rao, the learned Counsel for toe Appellants vehemently contended that even assuming the suit land to be a communal land, the Plaintiffs had an interest in that and consequently when they constructed a house and were living in that house, they could not be ejected from that house and that they were entitled to a declaration to that effect. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of Ram Singh v. Radha Singh and Ors. 150 Ind Cas 99. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of Ram Singh v. Radha Singh and Ors. 150 Ind Cas 99. In that case, where one of the village proprietors reclaimed a portion of the bed of a stream, which was a common land of the village, and erected a wall as an enclosure against cattle and the other proprietors brought a suit for ejectment and injunction against the repetition of the encroachment, it was held that the Defendant could not be ousted unless the Plaintiffs showed that his possession had caused them such material and substantial injury as could not be remedied by a partition of the joint land and that erection of the wall alongside the plot was a prudent measure against the cattle and hence subsidiary to farming operations. On the strength of this decision, the learned Counsel contended that inasmuch as, there was no evidence in this case that the erection of this house caused any inconvenience to Defendants 1 to 3, they (the Plaintiffs) could not be ejected from the house and consequently they were entitled to the declaration. This decision, in my opinion, does not apply to the facts of this case. In this case, the land is a communal land being described as Deshkoth land. Communal land can be used only for a communal purpose. In the case cited by the learned Counsel, from the judgment it is dear that the land in dispute in that suit was not a communal land, but was a joint land. In a joint land, if one co-sharer does any act the other co-sharers cannot ask for his removal unless they show some inconvenience to their enjoyment. But in the case of a communal land, if the user by one member of the community is not a user for a communal purpose but only for a private purpose, then he will not be entitled to have it. In this case the Plaintiffs alleged that they built a house for the purpose of their residence. That is an individual user and not a user for a communal purpose. Therefore they are not entitled to a declaration prayed for in the case, as the suit is the outcome of an application filed in execution objecting to the execution of the decree obtained by Defendants 1 to 3 against Defendant 4. That is an individual user and not a user for a communal purpose. Therefore they are not entitled to a declaration prayed for in the case, as the suit is the outcome of an application filed in execution objecting to the execution of the decree obtained by Defendants 1 to 3 against Defendant 4. The decision in this appeal does not in any way affect the rights, if any, of the Plaintiffs as members of the village community. The Second Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. But as there is no appearance for the Respondents, there will be no order as to costs. 4. Appeal Dismissal. Final Result : Dismissed