On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is a case where the appellants themselves did not appear in the witness box. No site plan has been produced on record. The plaint is totally silent about the area, which has been allegedly encroached upon by the respondents, though owned by the appellants. The entire area in the vicinity is constructed. It is impossible to carry out the measurements at the site as no pucca point can possibly be fixed as there are houses in the vicinity. In fact, the land in the vicinity was acquired and this portion having abadi was left out only because of construction. The appellants had not approached the court with clean hands as they had failed to mention the factum of acquisition of part of their land, which reduced their holding considerably. Even in the demarcation carried out in terms of the order passed by this Court, the Local Commissioner could not fix any pucca point. He merely referred to some outer walls of the houses as pucca points, which cannot be accepted as such. Further, it was submitted that in the earlier litigation between the co-sharers, in which the appellants were the parties, a site plan was produced by Chuni Lal, one of the appellants, in terms of which a well was at the place of a common wall shared by the parties and the boundary wall was straight. Even as per the site plan mark `A' produced on record, the appellants have shown the well at the common wall, but the boundary wall of the plot has been shown a bit bent. However, it is not in dispute that the well is at the place of joint wall. He further submitted that the site plan, produced by one of the appellants in the earlier litigation, could not be put to him in his cross-examination, as he had not appeared in the witness box. Finally, it was submitted that the appellants, who had approached the Court, had to stand on their own legs and they could not find fault with the evidence led by the respondents and the case set up could not be proved with the evidence led by the appellants and the suit was rightly dismissed.
