JUDGMENT 1. - In this second appeal by the defendant the only point for decision is whether the lane in question which has been shown by letter 'A' in plan Ex. 1 produced by the plaintiff, in which the defendant is alleged to have constructed the four ventilators and 3 spouts and also eaves belong to the plaintiff? 2. Both the lower courts have come to concurrent finding that the plaintiff's title to the lane in question is proved, and in this view of the matter the injunction issued by the trial court directing removal of 4 eaves placed over the ventilators and closure of the 3 spouts was maintained by the first appellate court and so also a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants to construct in future the spouts or eaves in his house over the land in question. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the plaintiff based his claim in the suit on his ownership to the lane in question based on title, but has miserably failed to substantiate it. It has been further argued that the plaintiff has not been successful even in establishing possessory title over the land in question. His contention is that the inference of possessory title drawn by the courts below does not follow from the facts proved by the plaintiff. 4. It may be observed that the plaintiff has not produced any title deed to the lane in question. He relied on a mortgage deed of the year 1902, A.D., alleged to have been executed by his father in respect of the property in question. I have looked into the original mortgage deed which was placed on the record and find that neither the measurements of the lane in question mentioned therein as 'kita' No. 4' tally with the lane in question, nor the boundaries. It is impossible to establish the identity of the lane in question mentioned in the mortgage deed with the lane in dispute. Another document Ex. 3 is a 'patta' issued in favour of the purchaser in execution of decree of one Chiranjilal against the judgement-debtor Ganesh wherein while describing the boundaries towards the west it has been mentioned that there is a house of one Moolchand Mahajan and a lane 31/2 yds. wide on the north and about 2 yds on the south. In the first place it is not a document interparties. wide on the north and about 2 yds on the south. In the first place it is not a document interparties. Moreover, reliance is being placed on the recital of boundaries in the document which cannot constitute relevant evidence under section 13 of the Evidence Act against the defendant who was neither a party to the document nor an attestator to the same. Besides that it does not contain any such statement that the lane in question belongs to Moolchand plaintiff. Ex.4 is a plan attached to Ex. 3 and is thus of no help to the plaintiff. Ex. A. 1 is the original 'patta' of Ex.3. This is all the documentary evidence. The learned Civil Judge has contended himself by merely observing that in his opinion Ex. 2 to Ex. 4 also support the plaintiff's stand. To say the least, this sort of discussion of the documentary evidence sought to establish the title of a party is most unsatisfactory. As already stated above, none of these documents go to establish the plaintiff's title to the lane in dispute. 5. Coming to the oral evidence the plaintiff Pitamber Dayal P.W. 1 has stated that the lane in question was being used by him for tethering cattle. No other act of his exclusive possession has been pleaded much less proved. This sort of stray and sporadic act of tying cattle in an open space lying infront of one's house can by no imagination amount to proof of ownership to the lane. In cross-examination the plaintiff has admitted that for the last 3 or 4 years he has stopped even tethering his cattle in the lane in question. The witnesses produced by him do not advance his case any further. A bald assertion made by them that the lane belongs to the plaintiff is nothing but an opinion based on no data and is no evidence in the eye of law. They have not proved any such act on the part of the plaintiff with respect to the lane in question as may go to establish the plaintiff's possessory title to the lane in question. 6. Neither the documentary evidence nor the oral evidence taken either singly or cummulatively at all establish the plaintiff's right to the lane in question. They have not proved any such act on the part of the plaintiff with respect to the lane in question as may go to establish the plaintiff's possessory title to the lane in question. 6. Neither the documentary evidence nor the oral evidence taken either singly or cummulatively at all establish the plaintiff's right to the lane in question. Thus the inference of ownership to the lane in question drawn by the courts below in favour of the plaintiff is based on no legal evidence and cannot be sustained. 7. The result is that I allow this appeal, set aside the judgement and decrees of the courts below and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs, through out. *******