JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This appeal is directed against judgment and decree by Sri Bramha Singh, learned Civil Judge, Ballia dated 21-12-74 in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 71 arising out of original suit no. 358 of 65 by which he reversed the judgment of Sri M. P. Singh, Munsif dated 18-1-71 and decreed the claim of plaintiff as detailed in the impugned order. 2. It appears that plaintiff respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the appellant to remove the pipes shown by letters STV and spout shown by letter Q and to dose the door shown by letter P and drain shown by letter R and ventilator shown by letter U in site plan appended to the plaint. It was further prayed that defendants be restrained from passing and repassing towards north through door P and from discharging water through spout and drain aforesaid ; in the alternative there was also a prayer for recovery of possession over the site of disputed pipes; a sum of Rs. 50/- was also claimed by way or damages along with costs of the suit. 3. Land in dispute lies in village Jagdish Pur Bankata within municipal limits Ballia and is situated in plot no. 227/3 of the Settlement Map. Its dimensions have been roughly laid at the foot of the plaint. Both the appellants are inter-related. Smt. Indrawati Devi is wife of Ram Chandra Singh appellant. The suit was filed by Ram Asrey Ojha with the allegations that his house bad been denoted in the site plan by letters A, B, C, and D; towards west of his house there was open land. He took that land from Zamindar; and thereafter enclosed the same with walls towards east and north varying from 11/2 to 2 cubits; however southern wall was six cubits high. The southern wall was constructed by him to provide privacy to the ladies of his house who went to worship the idol of goddess installed by him within this compound. He also planted some flowers etc; he procured a written lease from the Zamindar about the same. 4. Land towards south of this enclosure was purchased by one Raghubir goldsmith about 2 years prior to the institution of this suit. Raghubir constructed a house thereon. That house was purchased by appellants from Raghubir. He also planted some flowers etc; he procured a written lease from the Zamindar about the same. 4. Land towards south of this enclosure was purchased by one Raghubir goldsmith about 2 years prior to the institution of this suit. Raghubir constructed a house thereon. That house was purchased by appellants from Raghubir. They started construction of a wall towards north of their house adjoining the plaintiff's southern wall of the enclosure shown by letters PK. Defendants also opened a door at point P and a drain at point R without knowledge of plaintiff in the northern wall of their house. It was on 31-10-65 with the help of some school boys that defendants demolished the plaintiff's wall PF upto the plinth. After the demolition of the southern wall, plaintiff could know for the first time about this encroachment and reported the matter to the Police but nothing was done on account of influence of defendant no. 1 who is a Registrar Qanungo. While plaintiff was intending to take some action defendants fixed three pipes shows by letters STV and built three pillars there. They also opened a new window at point U and a spout at point Q. They wanted to use door P for passing and repassing on the plaintiff's land and to discharge their water from the drain and spout in the plaintiff's compound. They further want to construct septic tank of their latrine on the land of plaintiff's compound; the ventilators fixed by defendant overlook plaintiff's compound and infringed the privacy of the women folk of plaintiff's family. 5. Pending the suit defendants stated that construction of upper story. They also opened the windows and ventilators in the northern wall of the upper story which also overlook the plaintiff's compound. 6. It was further pleaded that there is a custom of privacy prevalent in the family of plaintiff which entitles plaintiff to maintain the suit. Defendants did not listen to the protests of plaintiff hence the suit. 7. Both the defendants filed a single written statement. It appears that the sale deed was executed by Raghubir in favour of wife of defendant Ram Chandra who had been impleaded by plaintiff. Defendants did not listen to the protests of plaintiff hence the suit. 7. Both the defendants filed a single written statement. It appears that the sale deed was executed by Raghubir in favour of wife of defendant Ram Chandra who had been impleaded by plaintiff. Their contention was that plaintiff had no right or title over the land in dispute, plaintiff was not in possession thereof; defendants purchased the house from Raghubir on 17-12-64 shown by digits 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the sketch map laid at the foot of the written statement. After the aforesaid purchase defendants started reconstruction of the house. Old house of Raghubir has been shown by digits 5, 2, 3, 6 which has been constructed new. Defendants left some portion towards north unconstructed out of the area purchased by them. That strip of land has been shown by digits 1 - 5, and 6 - 4 in the said sketch map and does not be in 227/3. This portion was left unconstructed with a view to locate a septic tank and for growing flowers etc. thereon. They also opened a door for being used as passage towards north. All these constructions lie within defendants land and plaintiff had no right to claim their removal. Plaintiff had no concern with the land towards east of his house and the ladies of the house of plaintiff never used the aforesaid compound. There was no occasion for invasion of privacy of the ladies of plaintiff's family by the windows and ventilators fixed by defendants in their wall. Defendants never demolished any wall of plaintiff nor such wall existed there. Suit was barred by limitation. 8. It appears that this suit was decreed on 23-8-67 by Sri G. D. Dube. Appellants carried the matter in appeal (Civil Appeal No. 157 of 67 which was decided by Sri Prahlad Narain learned II Addl. Civil and Sessions Judge Ballia on 25-10-68). The appeal was allowed and judgment and decree passed by learned trial court were set aside and the case was remanded under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with direction to register the same afresh and after framing an issue about the settlement position of the disputed land, the learned Munsif was ordered to dispose of the case in the light of directions given by learned Judge on 25-10-68. After remand two additional issues drawn by learned Munsif are nos. 9 and 10 and read as below : "Whether the Ahata and wall in suit lie in plot no. 227/3 ? Whether the plaintiffs have any right of privacy ? If so had it been infringed by the constructions of defendants ?" Learned Munsif directed plaintiff to get the land in dispute located through a map to scale. That direction was not carried out. In the result the suit was dismissed with costs on 18-1-1971. This judgement was reversed by Sri Bramha Singh learned Civil Judge Ballia in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 12 on 21-12-1974. Plaintiff's suit was decreed as detailed in the impugned order giving rise to this appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 10. The first contention put forward before me on behalf of appellants was that Sri Bramha Singh learned Civil Judge erred in observing that plaintiff successfully proved the demolition of the southern wall of his compound by defendants. It was borne out by the Commissioner's map and also the admission of defendant. It was also proved by a report of this incident lodged by plaintiff at Police Station at the time of demolition of the wall. 11. A little scrutiny of the evidence on record shows that this finding of learned Civil Judge is perverse and unsustainable by evidence on record. It was laid in paras 5 and 6 of the plaint that on 31st October 65 defendant in collusion with some boys of school forcibly demolished the upper portion of the wall shown by letters EK in site plan and a report about the matter was lodged by plaintiff at Police Station. However police did not take any action in the matter on account of influence of defendant no. 1 who was a Registrar Kanungo, Defendant no. 1 in his statement has denied all these allegations. 12. Plaintiff Ram Asrey entered the witness box as P. W. 1 and testified about the demolition of his wall by defendant and some boys of school. He further testified that the foundation of the wall was still in tact. He was supported on this point by his witness Nand Kishore who testified that plaintiff was held by 3 or 4 boys while three or four boys demolished this wall. 13. He further testified that the foundation of the wall was still in tact. He was supported on this point by his witness Nand Kishore who testified that plaintiff was held by 3 or 4 boys while three or four boys demolished this wall. 13. In cross-examination Ram Asrey conceded that this allegation about the demolition of the wall and about lodging the report is not substantiated by any documentary evidence on record. Towards end of his cross-examination he conceded that he did not lodge any report at Police Station Kotwali but he informed the Police at Police Outpost; his report was not taken down ; three constables who inspected the spot could not be named by him ; he also could not name the boys who demolished this wall. There is no notice or report lodged by plaintiff on record to show this demolition of the wall by Ram Chandra Singh etc. Sri Ram Chandra Singh has emphatically denied it. It does not appeal to common sense that plaintiff could not have lodged report or given a notice about such high handedness of defendant no. 1 had there been any truth in the matter. So this allegation seems to be a cock and bull story coined to bolster up plaintiff's claim. 14. It appears that the report relied upon by plaintiff respondent dated 13-1-66 paper No. 11 ga/1 was simply an ex parte report prepared at the back of defendant which does not clinch this point. Sri Hari Ram Misra learned Advocate who was appointed as Commissioner to prepare a map to scale has not been examined in this case to prove the accuracy of this report and site plan paper no. 6 Ka drawn by him. Under Section 83 it was obligatory on the part of plaintiff respondent to have proved the genuineness of the map and ex parte report by examining Sri Hari Ram Misra. It is correct that formal proof of this report was dispensed with after procuring an endorsement on behalf of appellants on 24-9-66 vide Paper no. 36 Ka 2 but it does not mean that the accuracy of the measurements was admitted by appellants. It is correct that formal proof of this report was dispensed with after procuring an endorsement on behalf of appellants on 24-9-66 vide Paper no. 36 Ka 2 but it does not mean that the accuracy of the measurements was admitted by appellants. When there was a dispute about the identity of the suit property some trained surveyor should have been entrusted with the task of preparation of a map to scale as such map would have been of great assistance for proper disposal of the controversy. There is nothing in the report of the Commissioner to show that he took any step to find some fixed points or prepare any field book or carry out any measurement according to the principles of survey. No effort was made by him to inspect the locality in presence of defendants. An objection was preferred to his report even by plaintiff. In reply to that objection learned Commissioner gave a supplementary report dated 9-7-66 paper No. 22 ga 2. However there is nothing in the report of learned Commissioner to show that any foundation of the wall found by him was connected or interlocked with the walls of the alleged compound of plaintiff. In his statement Ram Chandra Singh never conceded the allegation that any wall was constructed by plaintiff which was demolished by him. There is also a variation about the date of demolition of the wall as set out in the plaint and as given by Nand Kishore P. W. 2 in his statement. According to Nand Kishore this wall was demolished about one year prior to bis deposition on 3-8-87, it comes to 3-8-66, while in the plaint the date given was 31-10-65. It does not appeal to common sense that defendants fixed a door P in their wall passing and repassing on plaintiff's land when such passage was blocked by the alleged existing wall of plaintiff. The allegation of defendant no. 1 that no wall was in existence adjoining his present wall which might have been constructed by plaintiff seems correct. It does not appeal to common sense that the southern wall adjoining A B was so high when the eastern and western and northern walls of the alleged compound were hardly 1 cubit or 2 cubits high or so. 1 that no wall was in existence adjoining his present wall which might have been constructed by plaintiff seems correct. It does not appeal to common sense that the southern wall adjoining A B was so high when the eastern and western and northern walls of the alleged compound were hardly 1 cubit or 2 cubits high or so. So it is not possible to go by such flimsy allegations about the existence of southern wall of plaintiff and its demolition by defendant. 15. Learned Civil Judge also erred about a right of privacy available to plaintiff about this open land of his compound. A mere look at site plan paper No. 6 gha shall go to disclose that it is not a Zenana house used by ladies of plaintiff's house ; the Zenana house is towards west of this open land. This compound is open to public gaze towards north, east and west. The existence of eastern, western or northern walls which may be 1 or 2 cubits high cannot obstruct the public view. The allegations of Ram Chandra that idol of goddess was not installed by plaintiff but was worshipped by general public seems correct as the compound is not completely enclosed even by small boundary walls and is accessible to all and sundry. Under such circumstances when this open land was not Zanana apartment of plaintiff's house privacy of his ladies could not be invaded by any ventilator etc. in defendant's wall. 16. A perusal of the judgment of Sri Bramha Singh show that he unnecessarily criticised the judgment of Sri Prahlad Narain by which the case was remanded to learned Munsif. It was observed by Sri Prahlad Narain that plot Nos. 227/3 and 228/3 were adjoining plots; sale deed Exh. A-5 executed by Raghubir in favour of Smt Indrawati Devi wife of Ram Chandra Singh related to the house situated in plot Nos. 228/3 measuring 9 biswas 1 biswansis. Plaintiffs had nothing to do with plot No. 228/3 and his lease dated 3-2-56 Exh. 4 and sale deed Exh. 5 executed by Nand Kishore dated 5-1-55 did not relate to any land situated in plot No. 228/3. Plaintiff also filed extract of Khatauni 1366-F Exh. 1 and extracts of khasras for 1366-F and 1372-F, Exhs. 2 and 3 showing abadi in plot No. 227/3 only. Defendants filed their sale deed Exh. A-5, khasra 1373-F Exh. 5 executed by Nand Kishore dated 5-1-55 did not relate to any land situated in plot No. 228/3. Plaintiff also filed extract of Khatauni 1366-F Exh. 1 and extracts of khasras for 1366-F and 1372-F, Exhs. 2 and 3 showing abadi in plot No. 227/3 only. Defendants filed their sale deed Exh. A-5, khasra 1373-F Exh. A-2 and traced map Exh. A-3 to show location of plots 227/3 and 228/3. Sri Ram Aasrey Ojha P.W. 1 himself conceded at page 5 of his deposition that he had absolutely no connection with plot No. 228. Under such circumstances the extent of alleged encroachment if any made by defendants could be demonstrated only by a map to scale and not otherwise. The judgments prepared by Sri Prahlad Narain and thereafter by Sri M. P. Singh Munsif directing the plaintiffs to prove that the land in dispute lay well within plot No. 227/3 or suffer judgment were perfectly correct. Learned counsel for respondents referred to site plan paper No. 106 Ka prepared on the request of Raghubir he also pointed out that plaintiff was not under the necessity to get a map to scale prepared. In this connection reliance was placed on Mundar Lal v. Jiwan Ram reported in AIR 1944 Pat. 254 where it was observed : "Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 20, Rule 9 emphasise the fact that there should be a description of the immovable property sufficient to identify the same and if there are plot numbers the plot numbers should be given." 17. It appears that this ruling is not in point; in that case dispute was about entire 16 annas share of Kamat land and certain plots. It was not a case of encroachment over a portion or any plot. 18. The next ruling relied upon by Sri Bhola Nath Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent does not help him at all. On the other hand it supports the case of appellants. It was not a case of encroachment over a portion or any plot. 18. The next ruling relied upon by Sri Bhola Nath Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent does not help him at all. On the other hand it supports the case of appellants. The authority relied upon has been reported in Chutahru v. Hira Lal Sah and others, AIR 1960 Patna page 308 where it was observed : "It seems to me that unless the plaintiffs respondents indicate the identity of the lands which they are claiming either by means of boundaries or by means of a map as they purported to do by their petition dated 24th January 1946 it is difficult, if not impossible, to find whether they have title to the lands, and whether any encroachment has been made by the appellants. It would be impossible to pass a decree capable of execution unless the identity of the lands is known. The question of prejudice also comes in, and it would be difficult for the appellants as defendants to show if they are able to so (sic) show, that the plaintiffs respondents have no title to the lands which they are claiming." This ruling fully helps the appellants. Learned Munsiff Sri M.P. Singh in his judgment recorded findings under issues No. 1 and 9 and observed that plaintiff falsely alleged that settlement map could not be available and so he did not get survey map prepared despite the specific directions of the court. J have carefully perused the record an J find that plaintiff was not justified in defying the direction of the court. There are statements of Ram Charan DW-1, Shiv Nath Sharma DW-2 and Jagarnath Dixit DW-3 which go to show that Ram Chandra Singh did not encroach on any land of plaintiff appellant but left a portion of his own land to the extent of 5 or 6 ft. towards north of the wall constructed by him. Ram Chandra also testified about the construction of Raghubir Sonar existing on this land. He also denied all these allegations of encroachment. There is nothing on record to support the plaintiff's allegation that after taking the open land on lease from Zamindar ne enclosed the same with walls. The lease deed executed by Sri Ram Sabai Mehta shows that the open land leased to plaintiff was "25 karis north south. He also denied all these allegations of encroachment. There is nothing on record to support the plaintiff's allegation that after taking the open land on lease from Zamindar ne enclosed the same with walls. The lease deed executed by Sri Ram Sabai Mehta shows that the open land leased to plaintiff was "25 karis north south. According to the Commissioner's map aforesaid, plaintiff was already occupying 29 ft. 7 inches land instead of 20.6 ft. land north south." Sri M. P. Singh and Sri Prahlad Narain rightly pointed out that possessory title could be of no avail against the true owner nor plaintiff could successfully prove his possession over the disputed land. It was correctly pointed out that partali map Exh. A-3 showed that plot No. 228/3 existed towards south of plot No. 227/3 and both the plots adjoined each other. Defendants were owners in possession over plot No. 228/3. Plaintiff was bound to prove that they encroached over a portion of plot No. 227/3 but he has failed to prove the same despite repeated directions of Sri Prahlad Narain and Sri M. P. Singh. For the aforesaid reasons I find that Sri Bramha Singh wrongly reversed the judgment of Sri M. P. Singh dated 18-1-71. Plaintiff failed to prove his ownership of possession over the disputed land; he also failed to prove that the defendants had opened any drain and pipes etc. on the land of his enclosure. No other point was argued before me. 19. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside. Plaintiff's suit is/dismissed with costs throughout to the contesting defendants.