trespassing into their property and demolishing the sheds that existed. The Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that the plaintiffs never entered the witness box, instead have examined their general power of attorney holder. Though it was pleaded that one George Pinto had informed the plaintiffs about the illegal act of demolition being carried by the defendants, the said witness has not been examined by the plaintiffs. Thus, when the plaintiffs have categorically pleaded that they were not present at the spot when the alleged demolition was carried out by the defendants, and that they were informed by the said George Pinto, the plaintiffs have neither entered the witness box nor they have examined the said George Pinto. The power of attorney holder of the plaintiffs is not a compintant witness to the said aspect of allegation. Taking note of this aspect of the matter, the Trial Court has declined to consider the case of the plaintiffs regarding trespass and demolition by the defendants. The Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that PW-1 when in the cross-examination was confronted with Exs.D-23 & D-24 photographs, has admitted to the existence of two sheds on the schedule property. If the sheds which were existing on the schedule property were demolished, question of
