Life of Ahmad — Page 714
THE WALL as 714 in his favour about the way. In my opinion it is fair to award Rs. 100 as damages… The land on which the wall has been built is a part of the vacant land about which Ghulam Jeelani sued Imam Din, defendant, in 1867. The open space which still exists there is also a part of the same land. In that case Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, the father of the plaintiff, was also a party as a defendant. Rahmatulla attended the court as his Mukhtar. Imam Din had no objection to Ghulam Murtaza being a party to the case. Evidence too was tendered on his (Ghulam Murtaza’s) behalf to show that Imam Din and Ghulam Murtaza had been in possession of the land. At last Major Birch dismissed the case of Ghulam Jeelani on January 20th, 1868, and decided in favour of the defendants…I do not think that the land under the wall is proved to the satisfaction of the Court to belong only to the defendant. On the other hand, the land, along with the adjoining open space, was in the possession of the defendants and the father of the plaintiff, as is clear from the case of Ghulam Jeelani. About 15 years ago the plaintiff built the Gol Kamra on a piece of the same land and then three or four years ago he built its enclosure. In the same way Imam Din, defendant, built a platform in front of his house and a Kharas. The site on which the wall has been erected was