courtyard and is in possession of the plaintiff, rather it was pleaded that plaintiff has no concern with the portion shown by letters ABCD in the site plan and the portion is the exclusive property of defendant and his brothers and the same is part of plots no.90, 91 and 92. Though the boundaries are not disputed, but it was denied that the boundary walls of the disputed site are ancestral or were constructed by father of the plaintiff. It was also denied that plaintiff constructed khor etc. in the plot in question. It was further pleaded that on the northern side, there is house of Pirthi and plot of Sundu. That Pirthi and Sundu are also brothers of defendant and that these are plot no.87 where two storeyed house of Pirthi and plot No.88 of Sundu are in existence and in between plots no.87 and 88, there is five feet wide gali bearing no.89. It was further pleaded that the property situated in plots no.87, 88, 89, 90, 91 and 92 is ancestral property of the defendant. That earlier this property was in possession of grandfather, namely, Sohan of defendant and then this property came to Sh. Chet Ram, father of the defendant. Earlier this was an old kutcha house consisting of four rooms and tin shed which was got demolished in the year 1964 and in the same year, father of the defendant divided this property and in one portion, Pirthi, brother of defendant constructed his two storeyed house and the other portion, which is now known as plot no.88, came to Sundu and for their convenience, a gali of five feet was left between the house of Pirthi and plot of Sundu and this gali is not known as plot no.89 and the remaining portion was left for Bhola, Krishan and Chaneder which is the disputed site and now known as plots no.90, 91 and 92. That the defendant occupied the house in front of plots no.87 and 88 i.e. of Pirthi and Sundu, which is plot no.86. Further, it was pleaded that in the year 1992-93, map of abadi deh was prepared and field book was also prepared and the disputed site
