Responsa for Bava Batra 119:4

Q. The community wedding-hall borders on an alley into which the back doors of many houses open. The leaders of the community desire to open a door leading into the alley. They claim that part of the alley belongs to the community and that a door once led from the wedding-hall into the alley. The inhabitants of the alley, through their representative, deny that the community has any rights there, and introduce as evidence a bill of sale, countersigned by the leaders of the community, which reads: "A (a former resident there) sold to B his house and his part of the alley which borders on the community wedding-hall." Thus the leaders of the community admitted, by countersigning the bill of sale, that the alley belongs to the people who live in the houses around it, and that even though the wedding-hall borders on it, the community possesses no rights in the alley.^*The wording of this Responsum is quite obscure and it is difficult to reconstruct the question. The interpretation given above seems to me to be near the truth; it is based on the readings of the old Prague edition.
A. The leaders of the community may not open any doors in the wedding-hall leading into the alley, even though they certainly have rights there, since a door that had been completely closed may not be reopened; and no new door may be opened in an alley without the permission of the inhabitants there. On the other hand, the evidence produced by the inhabitants of the alley is worthless; for leaders of a community sign a bill of sale as judges and not as witnesses; and according to the Talmud (Ket. 109a), judges sign a document without reading it and, therefore, are not responsible for its contents.
SOURCES: Pr. 118.

Q. B's building was contiguous to A's property. The foundation of this building extended two hand-breadths beyond the wall itself. B wanted to build another wall in line with the edge of this foundation, the wall to extend two hand-breadths beyond the existing wall. A protested vigorously claiming that B's property ended at the edge of the wall of the building mentioned above, and that the foundation of such building extended two hand-breadths in his (A's) property.
A. Since B was in undisturbed possession of the width of the foundation, he was thus in possession of the disputed two hand-breadths of ground along the whole length of the property, and upwards reaching into the sky. Therefore, if B will take an oath to the effect that he did not remove his neighbor's landmark [when the foundation was built], the disputed two hand-breadths of ground will belong to him. Although according to Biblical law no oath is administered in disputes involving real property, such an oath is required by Rabbinic enactment.
SOURCES: Cr. 239; Am II, 184; Mord. B. B. 558; Agudah B. B. 109.