32 years. To show the plaint schedule property, they enclosed rough sketch, in which, the first schedule is shown as A, B, C.D. The second schedule property is shown as B, B1, B2 and B3 and third schedule is shown as D1, D2, D3, D4. In the first schedule property, between A and B point and eastern side of the B point there is a feet height 80 year old wall on the east-west direction. On the west of B point, the plaintiffs’ vendors’ shed there. On the western side of the first schedule property, on the portion of A and D1 point, they constructed mach box office. While constructing the office, they left l½ feet vacant place on the southern side from D1 to maintain the southern side east-west wall. Simultaneously, the defendants’ vendor also left 1½ feet on the northern side of the property. Thus, the three feet vacant is using as a common lane enjoyed by both the plaintiffs and the defendants. It is shown as third schedule in the plaint. The plaintiffs on the eastern side of their property fixed a natural gas tank and equipments and maintain in vacant place. The defendants, who are the husband, wife and son, have no right over the first schedule of property. But by creating documents, they are attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment and also attempted to construct a wall in the common land. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaring title over the plaint second schedule property with
