JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is a Defendant's appeal in a suit brought by the Plaintiff for demolition of certain constructions detailed at the foot of the plaint and for the issue of a permanent, injunction restraining the Defendants from making the constructions over the land in suit. The dispute relates to a portion of plot No. 429, which, according to the Plaintiff, was joint land and over a portion of which an Osara had been built by the Defendants who had no right to do so. The defence was that it was not joint land, but this land exclusively belonged to the Defendants because there had been a partition by virtue of which plot No 422 was given to the Plaintiff and plot No. 429 was given to the Defendants. 2. The trial court accepted the defence story and dismissed the Plaintiff's suit holding that plot No. 429 exclusively belonged to the Defendants. The lower appellate court has reversed that finding and has recorded a finding of fact that the land was joint and therefore ordered demolition. Aggrieved by that decision the Defendants have come to this Court in appeal. 3. The Defendants do not contest the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court that this was a joint land, but it has been contended on their behalf that since this construction has been in the Sehan Darwaza which is in front of the house of the Defendants they were entitled to maintain it by virtue of section 4 of the UP Village Abadi Act, which provides as follows: "Notwithstanding any custom or usage to the contrary in any agricultural village, a house owner may (a)......... (b) make such constructions in the Sehan Darwaza or land appurtenant to such house as may be necessary for agricultural or domestic purposes." 4. On this ground the Defendants argued that since this land was the Sehan Darwaza of the Defendants, they were entitled to build the construction. 5. According to the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court, which is not open to question and which is binding on me in second appeal, this Sehan Darwaza on plot No. 429 was joint land and I do not think that section 4 of the UP Village Abadi Act would apply to the present case. That would have applied if the Sehan was exclusively that of the Defendants. 6. That would have applied if the Sehan was exclusively that of the Defendants. 6. It was urged on behalf of the Appellants that since the land is a joint land and it has in no way caused a prejudice to the rights of the Plaintiff by making those constructions the suit as regards demolition must not be decreed. Reliance was placed in this connection on the Full Bench case of Chhedi Lal and Anr. v. Chhotey Lal, 1951 ALJR 196. where it was held that- "That question of the right of co-sharers in respect of joint land should be kept separate and distinct from the question as to what relief should be granted to a co-sharer, whose right in respect of joint land has been invaded by the other co-sharer either by exclusively appropriating and cultivating land or by raising constructions thereon. While a co-sharer is entitled to object to another co-sharer exclusively appropriating land to himself to the detriment of other co-sharers, the question as to what relief should be granted to the Plaintiff in the event of the invasion of his rights will depend upon the circumstances of each case. The right to the relief for demolition and injunction will be granted or withheld by the Court according as the circumstances established in the case justify. The Court may feel persuaded to grant both the reliefs if the evidence establishes that the Plaintiff cannot be adequately compensated at the time of the partition and that greater injury will result to him by the refusal of the relief than by granting it. On the contrary, if material and substantial injury will be caused to the Defendant by the granting of the relief, the Court will no doubt be exercising proper discretion in withholding such relief." 7. In the present case, as I have said above, nothing has been said as to the manner in which the Plaintiff would be prejudiced. On the other hand, this Osara has been built just in front of the house of the Defendants and is likely to be of much use to them. At the time of partition the Plaintiffs can claim another portion of this land and I do not think that he cannot be adequately compensated at the time of partition. 8. On the other hand, this Osara has been built just in front of the house of the Defendants and is likely to be of much use to them. At the time of partition the Plaintiffs can claim another portion of this land and I do not think that he cannot be adequately compensated at the time of partition. 8. In the circumstance, while I decree the suit for a declaration, that this hand is a joint land I do not think that the relief for the demolition in this particular case should be granted. I, therefore, allow the appeal in part and the decree so far as the order of demolition is concerned is set aside. The decree fer declaration that the land in dispute is a joint land will stand. Parties will bear their own costs throughout.