Court made an observation in paragraph No.29 that before purchasing the property whether he had measured the same or not, nothing on record and in order to prove that he had encroached and put up additions and also encroachment, no document is placed before the Court and rejected the same. The First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence in keeping the grounds urged before the First Appellate Court taken note of the contentions of the parties, in paragraph Nos.28 and 29 and also having considered both oral and documentary evidence particularly document marked by the plaintiff and also considering the evidence of D.W.1, there is no dispute with regard to both of them have purchased the property. The First Appellate Court also considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 comes to the conclusion that, it can be gathered that it is an admitted fact that property of the plaintiff is a vacant site. The plaintiff claims to have title and possession of the ‘A’ schedule property and ‘B’ schedule property, however, the plaintiff can get possession only of the extent actually in possession of his vendor. It is also taken note of by the Appellate Court that PW1 categorically admitted that property of defendant has tiled house and out
