JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 09.12.1992 passed by Civil Judge, Churu upholding the judgment and decree dated 18.01.1984 passed by Munsif, Churu, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants was rejected. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiffs Haider Khan and Ali Khan filed a suit against Ameen Khan and Umar Khan on 26.09.1975 seeking cancellation of sale-deed dated 07.04.1973 executed by Umar Khan in favour of Ameen Khan alleging the same to be fabricated and without consideration and void ab initio, the further claim was that the land comprised in the sale-deed was public lane (Government land) and, therefore, the possession, which has been taken over by Ameen Khan is unauthorized and he deserves to be evicted from the said land and the public lane was being used by the plaintiffs for getting light, air etc. and, therefore, they have easement and a declaration in this regard was also sought. 3. A written statement was filed on 17.10.1979 by the defendants, wherein, the averments made in the plaint were denied and in additional plea, it was stated that the land in question belong to Umar Khan regarding which Patta in the name of Ashu Khan and Sakru Khan, father of Umar Khan and his father's elder brother existed, was sold; Ameen Khan was in possession of the said land; the plaintiffs want to grab the said land and, therefore, the suit has been filed; the plaintiffs have forcibly opened gate and windows, which never existed and, therefore, they cannot claim easement and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. The trial court framed three issues. On behalf of plaintiffs PW-1 Haider Khan and PW-2 Amilal Puniya were examined and five documents were Ex.ed. On behalf of defendants DW-1 Razaq Khan, DW-2 Yasin Khan, DW-3 Baksu Khan and DW-4 Janu Khan were examined and no documents were Ex.ed. 5. 4. The trial court framed three issues. On behalf of plaintiffs PW-1 Haider Khan and PW-2 Amilal Puniya were examined and five documents were Ex.ed. On behalf of defendants DW-1 Razaq Khan, DW-2 Yasin Khan, DW-3 Baksu Khan and DW-4 Janu Khan were examined and no documents were Ex.ed. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that as the sale-deed has been executed pertaining to the land comprised in Patta and the same was in possession of Umar Khan, it cannot be said to be without authority or illegal and, if any land or part of it is public lane, as the same belongs to the Government, it is only the Government, which can take action, which is not a party to the suit and, therefore, it was not proved that the sale-deed was unauthorized or illegal. 6. Regarding the issue of easement, it was observed that besides plaintiff Haider Khan, no evidence was produced and on behalf of the defendants, Razaq Khan, Yasin Khan, Baksu Khan and Janu Khan stated that the door and windows have been opened after the dispute started and a suit between the parties being Haider Khan v. Yasin Khan was pending, wherein, the defendant has filed written statement and stated that the doors and windows have been opened six months prior to the purchase and, consequently, held against the plaintiffs. 7. In view of the findings on both the issues, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. 8. Feeling aggrieved the appellants filed first appeal before the Civil Judge, Churu, who by the impugned judgment dated 09.12.1992 after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that disputed land was a part of Patta of respondent Ameen Khan's ancestors and the sale, therefore, cannot be said to be legal. 9. The finding regarding the issue of easement was also held against the plaintiffs by the first appellate court as well. Ultimately, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment passed by the trial court. 10. The present appeal was admitted by this court on the following substantial question of law on 08.07.1993:- "Whether the courts below have erred in construing the documents Exs.1, 2 and 3 which are documents of title in arriving in its conclusion about the rights of the parties in respect of land in dispute, if so to what effect." 11. 10. The present appeal was admitted by this court on the following substantial question of law on 08.07.1993:- "Whether the courts below have erred in construing the documents Exs.1, 2 and 3 which are documents of title in arriving in its conclusion about the rights of the parties in respect of land in dispute, if so to what effect." 11. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that both the courts below fell in error in construing the documents (Ex. - 1, 2 and 3) and, as such, the findings are vitiated. It was submitted that from the said documents i.e. Patta pertaining to Samvat year 1938, which pertains to the property, which came into possession of the ancestors of the appellants (Ex. - 1); sale-deed from the State in the year 1938 by which the land was purchased by the ancestors of appellants (Ex. - 2), and Patta, which was issued in the name of Ashu Khan and Sakru Khan, ancestors of respondents (Ex. - 3), a comprehensive reading of the said three documents would clarify that the courts below have wrongly construed that the disputed land, which was sold by Umar Khan to Ameen Khan was part of his Patta (Ex. - 3), inasmuch as, the said Patta clearly indicated the area as 40 yards from north to south and 25 yards from east to west, however, from the map (Ex. - 5), it is apparent that the land on which right is being claimed and which has been sold by Ex. - 4 is east to west 40 yards and north to south 25 yards and, therefore, the finding recorded by the courts below deserves to be set aside. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgments passed by both the courts below. It was submitted that the land in dispute is a part of Patta (Ex. - 3) and has rightly been sold vide Ex. - 4. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgments passed by both the courts below. It was submitted that the land in dispute is a part of Patta (Ex. - 3) and has rightly been sold vide Ex. - 4. It was submitted that it is proved on record that the plaintiffs never had any door and windows on their northern side and as soon as the sale took place in favour of Ameen Khan, the same were broken open and suits were filed seeking injunction first and, thereafter, the present suit seeking declaration and cancellation, which clearly reflects the mala fides on part of the appellants and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the judgments of both the courts below as well as the record of the case. 14. The documents Ex. - 1 to 3 cannot be construed in vacuum and they are required to be examined in the context of Ex. - 5 the map, produced by the plaintiffs themselves. 15. A bare look at the said map would reveal that the disputed land, which has been indicated in the said map is exactly 80 feet from east to west and 25 feet from north to south and is in the building line of the land of plaintiff Haider Khan. If the plea of the plaintiffs is accepted according to map, land ad measuring 80 feet north to south and 50 feet east to west is not available at the site. Therefore, the interpretation sought to be put by the plaintiffs themselves is wholly contrary to the map (Ex. - 5). It is not the case of the plaintiffs that vide Ex. -3 a non-existence land at the site was sold to the defendant No.2 Umar Khan's ancestors way back in the year 1938. 16. The similar issue was raised before the first appellate court as well, which based on the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the three witnesses produced by the defendants who all are neighbours to the disputed land have supported the case of the defendants and as along-with the Patta (Ex. - 3) no map has been produced, it cannot be said that the interpretation put on the area indicated in Ex. - 3 is correct. - 3) no map has been produced, it cannot be said that the interpretation put on the area indicated in Ex. - 3 is correct. It was also found that the defendants were in possession of the land for over 30 years. 17. In a case where the documents involved are very old, what has been produced as Ex. by the plaintiffs is a hand written copy issued by the State Archives and is not even a photocopy, which document was denied by the defendants and the same does not even match with the available land at the site according to the land map produced by the plaintiffs themselves, merely by relying on the description contained in the said document (Ex. - 3) the findings recorded by both the courts below based on the oral evidence of the parties cannot be said to be vitiated. 18. The finding regarding opening of door and windows by the plaintiffs after the land was purchased by Ameen Khan also clearly establishes that for well over 35 years, when the plaintiffs have not treated the disputed land as public way and had not opened their door and windows on that side, the said conduct also indicates that the land was private land and part of Patta belonging to the ancestors of respondent Umar Khan, consequently, there is no substance in the appeal. 19. One more fact needs to be noticed that the appellant No.1 Haider Khan was reported dead and as no steps were taken for bringing on record his legal representatives this Court by order dated 03.02.2011 directed abatement of appeal so far as appellant No.1 was concerned directed that the effect of abatement of appeal in respect of appellant No.1 shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Looking to the nature of suit, wherein, the case of the plaintiffs Haider Khan and Ali Khan is that they were joint owner of the land and had claimed joint right of easement and the suit could have been maintained by Ali Khan himself in his individual capacity, it cannot be said that on account of appeal abating qua appellant No.1, the same would abate as a whole. 20. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the second appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed with costs.Second Appeal Dismissed. *******