1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by two defendants against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court granting the plaintiff zamindar an injunction to prevent the defendants from building on a certain plot of land in the village site and to remove any buildings made by them. The facts as found by the lower appellate Court are that there was formerly on the site of the building in question a chhappar, that is a thatched structure, and that previously to that the site contained an open space. The lower appellate Court considered that the rule governing this suit was as follows:
The site of house B in this case forms part of an ahata which must be considered to be a part of the abadi. The zamindar has no reason to complain if a house is built by the occupiers of the ahata on a portion of it.
2. In other words the lower appellate Court considers that if land in an abadi adjoins a house and is considered to be the ahata or yard of that house then the tenant residing in the house has a right to make a building on that ground. The learned Counsel for the appellants refers to Ghorey v. Shib Lal  18 A.L.J. 781 as authority for this proposition, but that ruling merely says that a tenant is entitled to build a pucca house on the site of a kuchcha house. In the present case the finding of fact is that formerly there was only a chhappar, and that that chhappar had not been there for the statutory period of twelve years. We consider that a tenant is not entitled to build a house on the site of a chhappar. The chhappar in question was burnt down- and no question is before us of the right to retain the chhappar. In any case the chhappar had not been there for the statutory period. Accordingly we consider the judgment of the learned single Judge is correct and we dismiss this Letters Patent appeal with costs.