Short Note : 1. This is an appeal by the defendant. The plaintiff-respondent Dr. Hiralal instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal for removal of encroachment made by the defendant on his land which is shown in the plaint map Ex. P-4 by letters ABCDEF. The plaintiff also claimed injunction. The plaintiff’s case was that he purchased 3,670 sq ft. of land with a house on 12th April 1952 from one Rahmat Khan by a sale-deed, Ex. P-1, and that the defendant in 1961 encroached upon 219 sq. ft. of this land. The defendant's case is that he had not encroached upon any land belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that the land over which he had made constructions belonged to one Banti Thekedar who sold it to Mohammad Raza and the defendant purchased the same from Mohammad Raza by a sale-deed dated 28th September 1959. The trial Court came to the conclusion that there was encroachment on the plaintiff's land by the defendant although not to the extent pleaded in the plaint. The trial Court directed demolition of the whole structure on the land found to have been encroached upon by the defendant. It further directed the defendant to stop the flow of sewage water on the land of the plaintiff. The decree of the trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the first appellate Court. The defendant then filed the present second appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were substituted in his place. Held : The defendant cannot be directed to demolish his house on a vague finding that there has been some encroachment on the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff can succeed only when he can prove by definite evidence the extent of the encroachment made by the defendant. The first appellate Court has not applied its mind from this faint of view. It has, therefore, become necessary for me to see whether the plaintiff has succeeded in proving his case. 2. As earlier stated, the burden lay on the plaintiff to prove whether the area alleged to have been encroached upon by the defendant belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff based his title on Ex. P-1 which is the sale-deed executed by Rahmat Khan on 12th April 1952 in favour of the plaintiff. The sale-deed does not contain any map. 3. As earlier stated, the burden lay on the plaintiff to prove whether the area alleged to have been encroached upon by the defendant belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff based his title on Ex. P-1 which is the sale-deed executed by Rahmat Khan on 12th April 1952 in favour of the plaintiff. The sale-deed does not contain any map. 3. As earlier stated by me, the fact that the disputed area was really a part of the house of Rahmat Khan and was purchased by the plaintiff cannot be taken to be proved either by the map Ex. P-2 or from the plaintiff's statement. In the circumstances, the Courts below were not correct in holding that the plaintiff has been successful in proving that the defendant encroached upon the area belonging to the plaintiff as shown in the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The decree for possession of the disputed area after demolition of the construction cannot, therefore, be allowed to stand. However, I do not find any illegality in the decree passed by the trial Court that the defendant has no right to drain his sewage water on the land of the plaintiff. To that extent, the decree passed by the trial Court must stand. Appeal partly allowed.