1. It is found that the plaintiff has shown possession on one side for about nine years and on another for about four years before suit. The plaintiff has had buildings erected on the disputed site for the periods specified above. Notice was given to the Municipality before building and plans were submitted. No objection was taken.
2. We think that under the circumstances the burden was rightly thrown upon the Municipality. Has it been discharged? The Subordinate Judge refers to no circumstance which can have that effect. It is said that the plaintiff's house and verandah are a foot or so in advance of the neighbouring house. This by itself is no proof that the plaintiff has encroached. It is not in evidence there is any line of frontage to which all builders of houses should conform. Moreover, the Munsif says that the neighbouring house has steps in front and that the last of the steps is on a line with the plaintiff's house and verandah. The Subordinate Judge says that the plaintiff must he deemed not to have purchased all the area mentioned in the sale certificate Exhibit A. It is nowhere suggested that any portion of the site marked A has been reserved by the intermediate vendors. The mere error in the statement of extent in Exhibit III cannot affect the plaintiffs' title when the whole area in Exhibit A has passed from hand to hand. It is thus clear that the burden thrown on the defendant has not been discharged.
3. We reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the Munsif with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.