owner, who is the vendor of the plaintiff, has transferred a portion of the land to enable defendant Nos.1 to 3 to lay a public road. D.W.1, in his cross-examination, has deposed that erstwhile owner has transferred by executing a document on Rs.10/- stamp paper. If defendant Nos.1 to 3 have admitted title of the plaintiff and erstwhile owner, then it presupposes that the entire burden would shift on the defendants to substantiate their right of laying a road in a private property. The Trial Court has in fact recorded a finding that no documents are produced by defendant Nos.1 to 3 indicating transfer of portion of the land to enable the public to have access through the said road. The Trial Court has, in fact, recorded a categorical finding at para No.40 of its judgment that the defendants have not produced any valid documents to substantiate their claim in regard to existence of 10 to 12 feet width road in Sy. No.39. However, at para No.41 of the judgment, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground that the defendants have not interfered with the plaintiff's possession over the remaining portion of the
