As per the map annexed with the advocate commissioner report dated 24.9.1995 (54Ga-2) there is a passage between the house of the appellant-plaintiff and the land in dispute. The land in dispute is marked as Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha which is on the other side of the road whereas the house of the plaintiff is on another side of the road. From Perusal # of the map, it is evidently clearly that between the house of the plaintiff and the land in dispute there exists a passage which is mentioned as Galiyara. The appellant-plaintiff has not filed any documentary proof to show any right or title over the land in dispute or over the passage land. The plaintiff had filed the suit claiming possession over the land in dispute on the% basis of & his Sahan i.e., appurtenant land. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has submitted that the land in dispute is an Abadi land and it is not recorded in the name of any person in the revenue records. The appellant-plaintiff was having the possession over the land in dispute since the time of his ancestors. ? Since there exists a passage between the house of the plaintiff and the land in dispute which is not denied, the land in dispute cannot be treated to be appurtenant land (sahan) of the house of the appellant-plaintiff. Under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 particularly Section 9 appurtenant land can be claimed by occupier and the private wells, trees in abadi and buildings can be settled with the existing owner or occupier thereof. In the case of Ramji Rai Vs. Jagdish Malloh the Court has considered.? the meaning of appurtenant land - the word 'appurtenant' in the case of buildings, means the open piece of land for the beneficial enjoyment of, the building itself.$