JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—The plaintiff filed suit No. 97/1 of 1976 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction on the Donga touching the wails of the plaintiffs house on land comprised in khasra No. 794/581/2 and making any encroachment on land of the plaintiff comprised in khasra No. 581/3 situated in Station Ward, Simla, since the plaintiff claims to be the owner of this property. The property of the defendants adjoins the land of the plaintiff and is comprised in khasra No 794/581/1. Then there is common, Gali 27 wide between these properties of the parties and half of the same belong to the plaintiff. As per the averments the defendants encroached upon this Gall in August, 1975 and raised a Danga on the same. The defendants intended to construct a house on this Danga and the plaintiff seeks to restrain them from raising this house and to remove the encroachment on khasra No. 581/3. 2. In their written statement, the Defendants denied these allegations of the plaintiff but the plaintiff reiterated the claim in his replication. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues I— "1. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties as alleged in pre-Obj. No. 1 of Written Statement. If so, its effect? OPD 2. Whether the suit has not been properly stamped as alleged. If so, its effect? OPD 3. Whether there was a common Gali between the property of the parties and the plaintiff is the owner of 1/2 of the said Gali, as alleged? OPD 4. If Issue No 3 is proved in affirmative, then whether the defen dant was encroached upon 1/2 of the said Gail, as alleged? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the easementary rights as claimed in para-5 of the plaint ? OPP 6. Whether the defendant has encroached the land belonging to the plaintiff as alleged in para-6 of the plaint ? OPP 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed ? OPP 8. Relief." 3. OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the easementary rights as claimed in para-5 of the plaint ? OPP 6. Whether the defendant has encroached the land belonging to the plaintiff as alleged in para-6 of the plaint ? OPP 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed ? OPP 8. Relief." 3. The matter was brought in revision to this Court and all the parties to the case made a statement on 19 8-1981 that Shri Devinder Gupta, Advocate (as he then was) be appointed a referee and the suit be disposed of in terms of the statement of referee to be made by him after visiting the spot and seeing the relevant documents, The parties also agreed that they would not have any right of appeal, revision, review, objection etc against the statement of referee and the statement would be binding on them. Accordingly, this Court passed an order and appointed Shri Devinder Gupta as a referee in the case. He was directed to make a statement before the trial Court and the trial Court was to decide the suit in terms of his statement. 4. Shri Devinder Gupta asked the parties to produce copies of plead ings and all other documents on which the parties intended to place reliance. Copy of plaint dated 16-1-1986, copy of Written Statement dated 23-8-1976, copy of Replication dated 14-9-1976, copy of amended plaint dated 12-8-1977, copy of written statement to the amended plaint dated 17-9-1977, Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1950-51, copy of mutation No. 413 attested on 12-6-1972 of Station Ward, Bara Simla, Copy of Musavi, Certificates from Ex-Superintendents, Municipal Corporation, Simla with respect to property known as Melrose Villa and Melrose Lodge, Copy of Sale Certificate dated 13-12-19o9 in favour of Defendant No. 1, Copy of registered deed of sale dated 14-7-1964 in favour of the plaintiff, copy of sale certificate in favour of Smt, Ved Wati Sahni, the pre-decessor of the plaintiff dated 22-124956, copy of site plan prepared by Shri M. R. Verma on 15-1-1976 showing the alleged encroachment, copy of letter dated 25-5-1960 sent by the pre-decessor of plaintiff to defendant No. 1 and copy of Agreement dated 12-5-1976 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 were placed before the referee. 5. 5. The statement of the referee further discloses that the pleadings and the documents produced by the parties were examined thoroughly and the place was visited twice in the presence of the parties and with the help of a Kanungo and Patwari, the entire area in possession of Defendant No. 1 was got matured and after satisfying the measurements in accordance with the Musavi, Tatima was got prepared on the spot. The area shown in burnt colour on the Tatima attached with the statement, was found in possession of the plaintiff and the one shown in Yellow Colour in possession of Defendant No. 1. The area shown in pencil colour is a passage from public road to the estate. Finally, it is worthwhile to quote the precise statement of referee as contained in Items (a), (b), (c) and (d) in extenso: "(a) Plaintiff is the owner of land measuring 993 sq. yds. 8 sq. ft. shown in Burnt Colour in the Tatima attached herewith alongwith 61 sq. yds. 3 sq. ft. area which is under the passage leading from the public path to Melrose Villa which is a part of land shown as Khasra No. 794/581/2/i shown in pencil colour, which includes the area under the old house as Khasra No. 581/2 which were shown in Musavi as structures but on the spot there is no structure and were depicted as Khasra No. 581/.* and 581/4. (b) Defendant is the owner of land measuring 707 sq. yds. 2 sq. ft. comprised in Khasra No. 794/581/1 alongwith the land measuring 46 sq. yds. 1 sq ft. which is a part of land shown as Khasra No. 794/581/2/1 lying between the public road and the passage leading to the Estate shown within yellow in the plan attached. (c) Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendant from raising any construction within one metre of his land from the boundary line shown as A and B’ in the Tatima attached. A permanent prohibitory decree restraining the Defendant from raising any construction on the passage measuring 61 sq. yds. 3 sq, ft. shown in pencil colour in the Tatima which is a part of land comprised in Khasra No. 794/581/2/1. A permanent prohibitory decree restraining the Defendant from raising any construction on the passage measuring 61 sq. yds. 3 sq, ft. shown in pencil colour in the Tatima which is a part of land comprised in Khasra No. 794/581/2/1. However, the Defendant is entitled to use the passage and plaintiff has also no right to raise any construction or to diminish its width from the existing width of 6 ft. The parties are entitled to use their respective arears subject to all other rights available under the law. (d) The parties may be left to bear their own costs." 6. The matter was decided by the trial Judge in accordance with the statement of referee and para 9 of the Judgment of Sub-Judge, 1st Class (2), Simla is quoted : "9. In view of above discussion, I proceed to pass a decree in the suit to the effect that plaintiff is owner of land comprised in Khasra No. .794/581/1, 581/2/581/3 and 581/4 as shown in the map filed by the referee. The defendants are owners of land comprised in Khasra No. 794/581/1 and the land lying between public road and passage leading to Mllrose Villa Estate measuring 46 sq. yards x 1 sq. ft. The areas of respective parties are indicated in the map filed by the referee and it forms a part of the Judgment and Decree It is further ordered that defendants are restrained from raising construction within one metre of their land from the boundary line shown by letters "A—B" in the map and they are further restrained from raising construction over the passage shown in pencil colour in the map filed. However, the plaintiff will also not raise any obstruction in the passage. The parties are left to bear their own costs. A Decree-Sheet be prepared accordingly. File, after completion, be consigned to the record-room." 7. The defendants assailed this Judgment in the Court of District Judge, Simla in CA No. 25-S/13/82 CANo. I2-S/13/82 and the District Judge accepted the appeal and set aside the decree The Court remanded the suit to the trial Court with the direction that the same be disposed of in acordance with law. The Court came to this conclusion after holding that the referee transgressed the limits of disputes between the parties. The Court came to this conclusion after holding that the referee transgressed the limits of disputes between the parties. Now, the appellant has assailed the judgment of the District Judge by way of this appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the learned District Judge failed to consider the statements of the parties before this Court and it was as a result of this statement that Shri Devinder Gupta, Advocate was appointed as a referee, and the entire controversy was allowed to be determined by him and against his decision, no objections, appeal, revision or review etc. was entertainable. It is also contended that the dispute was adjudicated between the parties correctly and the judgment passed by the trial Court could not be set aside on any ground whatsoever. In order to support these submissions, Shri K. D Sood, learned Counsel* for the appellant not only referred to the record but also relied on certain decisions reported in AIR 1937 All 701, Suraj Narain Chaube v. Beni Madho Chaube end others, AIR (38) 1951 Punj ; Par tab Talkies Padrauna v Talkies Distributors and another and AIR 1953 All 9, Lakshmi Narain v. Ram Babu and another. 8. I am in entire agreement with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant. In view of the statements of the parties and the aforesaid decisions, the defendants could cot raise any objection against the statement of the referee and the trial Judge rightly proceeded to pass the decree in terms of the statement submitted to the Court deciding the dispute between the parties. The contention of the Counsel for the Respondents that he travelled outside the dispute and more particularly the relief claimed in the plaint is not tenable since the referee has to take into consideration the respective properties of the parties in order to find out parameters of the dispute and the consequential reliefs admissible to bath of them. The statement of the referee does not, at all disclose that he transgressed the limits of the dispute before him. The District Judge has not correctly appreciated the matter which has resulted in erroneous conclusions. 9. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is merit in this appeal and the same is allowed. The statement of the referee does not, at all disclose that he transgressed the limits of the dispute before him. The District Judge has not correctly appreciated the matter which has resulted in erroneous conclusions. 9. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is merit in this appeal and the same is allowed. The judgment of the District Judge dated 7-12-1982 is set aside and the Judgment and Decree passed by the Sub- Judge, 1st Class (2), Simla is restored and is confirmed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.