8. Though the suit schedule pertains two items, the case on hand turns essentially around the suit wall. The question that arises for consideration is whether the suit wall exclusively belongs to the plaintiff or whether it is a common wall or whether the plaintiff is entitled only to 9 inches from his side. The stand of the defendant is that the plaintiff's wall is a very old one and is a mud wall. The plaintiff's wall actually measures only 9 inches. The defendant's wall also measures 9 inches and thus the suit wall is not a single entity but it comprises two. The plaintiff is obliged to prove his case. He anchored his entire case on Ex.A.2 (ie.) inam settlement deed dated 21.09.1974 executed by his father. It is not as if the plaintiff's father owned the property ancestrally. He had purchased it under two documents, namely, Ex.A.1 and Ex.B.7. In Ex.A.1, no measurements have been set out. However, in Ex.B.7 measurements have been set out. The property sold to the plaintiff's father under Ex.B.7 measures 12½ feet eastwest and the wall in question measures only 9 inches. Ex.B.27 is the annexure to Ex.A.2. In Ex.B.27, the width of the wall has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
