A fresh story. I just told them today.



So, in one of the villages of the Chelyabinsk region there are two neighboring areas. The owner of one is a man, the owner of another is a lady.



History is silent, because of what they snack that the man filed in court with the demand to remove the bath on the lady's site. It is said to be 2.5 meters from the fence, and should be at least 3 meters away.



The first instance he passed safely and the court decided to remove the bath to the devil's mother. However, it was smooth on the paper, so we forgot about the strawberries.



First, while the trial, it turned out that the fence of the man stands 20 cm on the section of the lady. Following the established tradition of good-neighborly relations, she filed with the court, demanding to remove the fence.



And, secondly, appealed the decision of the court on the question of the bath, and, while the case was awaiting consideration in the regional court, took out of the bath the stove, stove and other bathroom and registered the bathroom as a summer house.



It is foreseeable that the district court has left the decision in force. The ladies are coming to the site to remove the bath... the lady answers – so I have no baths! It was, it was floating. There is a summer house, but there is no bath!



When the tail is ripped, the stewards go to the judge. What to do? The judge, thinking, replies: is the bath indicated in the decision? The Bath! Is there a bathroom on the site? No to! End of IP.



As long as this whole petrification lasted, the court decided on the fence. And since the fence could no longer be registered as a lighthouse column or bridge, the roofs returned to the site to remove the fence.