KOLI RAJABHAI RUPABHAI Vs. DADAMBEN BHERABHAI DHUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - original respondent No.6 in the Appellate Court as well as Trial Court has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter be referred to as "the Appellate Court") in Misc. Civil Appeal No.9 of 2015 whereby the Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by respondents No.1 to 7 and set aside the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the learned 6th Additional Civil Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter be referred to as "the Trial Court") below application Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Suit No.150 of 2012 rejecting the application Exhibit 5 filed by respondents No.1 to 7, who are the original appellants - plaintiffs.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case is that the present petitioner and respondents No.8 to 25 are the original defendants of the aforesaid suit and are the original respondents in the above-mentioned Misc. Civil Appeal. Whereas, respondents No.1 to 7 herein are the original plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit and the appellants in the appeal. That the defendants side are the owners and in possession of agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 131 paiki 1, 131 paiki 2, 131 paiki 7, 131 paiki 4 and 131 paiki 5 situated at Village : Antroli, Taluka : Palanpur, District: Banaskantha. Whereas, the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No.130 paiki 1 and 130 paiki 2 of same village. It is contended that the lands of the parties are adjacent to each other. According to the petitioner, there is customary way existing in the lands of the plaintiffs for entering into the lands of the defendants and they are using the same from the time of their forefathers. It is also contended that except the customary way from the lands of the plaintiffs, there is no other alternative way for the defendants for all the purposes.

(3.) Heard Ms.Archana Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Chaudhari, learned advocate for the contesting party. Perused the material placed on record.