N. G. SHELAT, J. ( 1 ) THE suit from which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent in the Court of the Civil Judge (I. D.) at Limbdi against the defendant-appellant for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from tethering cattle in his Fali and keeping utensils and agricultural implements and also for a permanent injunction restraining him from causing obstruction to him in tethering cattle or using the Fali in any way he liked and for other incidental reliefs in the suit inter alia alleging that the suit Fali belongs to him and that the defendant has no right to tether cattle or keep any such implements so as to obstruct him in enjoyment thereof. ( 2 ) THE defendant-appellant resisted the suit inter alia contending that the Fali in front of his house belongs to him and not to the plaintiff as alleged; that he had allowed the plaintiff to construct a Gaman as he was his neighbour and he had to remove the same when called upon to do so; that he has a right to use and enjoy the Fali in front of his house in any manner he liked and that therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed. ( 3 ) THE trial Court raised the issues and in its opinion the Fali in front of the houses of the parties extending to the wall of Thakor Mandir on the east and between the two Kodvas of the plaintiff belongs to the plaintiff and that the defendant has no right to tether cattle or put any utensils and implements in the Fali in front of his house. In the result therefore he directed the defendant to remove the wooden hoop from near the southern Kodva and also all other utensils and implements if any from the Gaman. The defendant is further restrained from doing any act that would interfere with the plaintiffs reasonable enjoyment of the disputed Fali. Feeling dissatisfied with that order passed on 30th November 1957 by Mr. J. S. Bhatt Civil Judge (J. D.) Limbdi the defendant preferred Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1958 in the Court of the District Judge Zalawad Division. The same issue regarding the ownership in respect of the disputed Fali was raised and he found that it belonged to the plaintiff. In the result the appeal was dismissed with costs. J. S. Bhatt Civil Judge (J. D.) Limbdi the defendant preferred Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1958 in the Court of the District Judge Zalawad Division. The same issue regarding the ownership in respect of the disputed Fali was raised and he found that it belonged to the plaintiff. In the result the appeal was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by that decision passed on 30th April 1959 by Mr. V. M. Solanki District Judge Zalawad Division Surendranagar the defendant has come in appeal. ( 4 ) MR. Shah the learned advocate for the appellant contends that while he can have no objection to the finding about the ownership of the Fali which is in front of the plaintiffs house the ownership of the Fali in front of the defendants house belongs to the defendant. All that the plaintiff can claim in respect of that portion of the Fali would be his right of passage for going on the southern side and for that purpose he would no doubt have to keep that land open so that there would not be any obstruction of interference with the right of the plaintiff to pass by that side. Reliance was placed on a case of Mahamadsaheb Ibrahimsaheb v. Tilokchand Abheerchand Marwadi 24 Bom. L. R. 373. Now this aspect of the case does not appear to have been properly considered by the learned appellate Judge. What the plaintiff is required to establish is his title over the Angan space in front of defendants house. There is no document showing any such title over that open space. There can hardly arise any question of his claim by adverse possession of that space which is obviously in front of defendants own house and is being used by him. On the other hand it appears prima facie evident that open site in front of a house goes with the ownership of the house itself and he becomes the owners thereof. Similarly possession thereof can as well go with the possession of the house to which it appertains. In the case of Mahamadsaheb Ibrahimsaheb v. Tilokchand Abheerchand Marwadi 24 Bom. L. R. 373 it has been so held and the following pertinent observations can well hold good in the present case:-POSSESSION of open sites goes naturally with the possession of the property to which they adjoin. In the case of Mahamadsaheb Ibrahimsaheb v. Tilokchand Abheerchand Marwadi 24 Bom. L. R. 373 it has been so held and the following pertinent observations can well hold good in the present case:-POSSESSION of open sites goes naturally with the possession of the property to which they adjoin. If the defendant asserts his rights ever those sites he must show in the absence of any evidence that the sites ceased to be appurtenant to the property and that he has been in possession adversely against the owner of the property. In such a case the fact of the plaintiffs title comes to his aid with greater force; and unless the defendant can show that he has been in possession adversely to the plaintiff for more than twelve years the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree. ( 5 ) THE plaintiff has not been able to show any such ownership over that open space and the only thing which he can claim is to have right of passage through that open space. That has no doubt to be protected. The defendant has to use it subject to that right of the plaintiff in that respect. It was however said that on two occasions the plaintiff had protested against the defendant who was tethering a mare In that space and he had removed the same and had even discontinued such user through the intervention of the leading persons of the village. But that evidence does not establish his having agreed or conceded to the ownership of that open space as of the plaintiff. He may have reasonably conceded to discontinue tethering of his mare as that would cause obstruction to the passage of the plaintiff or even may amount to a nuisance which the plaintiff would be entitled to have it removed from nearby his house and from where he has to pass by. The plaintiff has no document of title to show ownership over the open space in front of the defendants house. The user of the defendant of that space shows his ownership over the same and there can be no claim of plaintiffs adversely holding it. But as observed in the case referred to here above the possession of open sites naturally goes with the possession of the property to which they appertain. No other person can have ownership over the front portion of somebodys house. But as observed in the case referred to here above the possession of open sites naturally goes with the possession of the property to which they appertain. No other person can have ownership over the front portion of somebodys house. That onus of proof was on the plaintiff and the Courts below have ignored this aspect of the matter and that justifies interference by this Court in second appeal though the finding is one of fact. In fact it has resulted in gross injustice in the circumstances of the case. The finding recorded by both the Courts below in respect of the open Fali in front of the defendants house cannot be sustained. [ The rest of the judgment is not material for the report ] decree modified. .