GARHWAL MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. Vs. RAGHUNATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before this Court, is a defendant in the Original Suit, being O.S. No.415/1992, "Raghunath Das Vs. Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd.", whereby the Original Suit No.415/1992, "Raghunath Das Vs. Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd.", which has been preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents, for the grant of decree of permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and eviction, was decreed by the court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division)/ FTC 6, Dehradun, by one of the impugned order and judgment dated 29.05.2001, which is presently under challenged before this Court. The aforesaid judgment, which was rendered by the trial court, was subsequently put to challenge in civil appeal, being Civil Appeal No.86/2001, "Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vs. Raghunath Das" and the same too had met with the same destiny, resulting into the dismissal of the appeal vide judgment and order dated 20.03.2018, which was passed by court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Dehradun. Hence, the present second appeal has been preferred before this Court.

(2.) The precise fact, which engages consideration before this Court in the present second appeal is that the plaintiffs/respondents, herein, as per the plaint averments has submitted that they are the purchaser of the property, having purchased the same from its predecessor owner Harbansh Kaur, by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 08.07.1970, and on the southern part of the land in question, there exists a 25 feet wide passage, which was alleged in the plaint to be utilized by the plaintiffs, by way of an easementary rights for their ingress and egress for quite a sufficient long period.

(3.) The cause of action as contended by the plaintiff/respondents, to institute the suit was contended to have arisen on the ground that the defendants have started raising a construction by encroaching upon the pathway in question by raising a wall and thus they would be creating an obstruction in the use of the passage. Hence, the suit in question was filed with a prayer that the defendants may be directed to demolish the wall and also not to wrongfully interfere into the peaceful possession of the property in question, which was conveyed to the plaintiffs/respondents by virtue of the sale deed dated 08.07.1970. Apart from it, a decree for damages, which was also claimed to be paid @50 per month, with effect from 01.09.1992, till the date of the actual handing over of the possession i.e. the date when the cause of action of a wrongful interference has occurred.