PARMATMA PRASAD Vs. SAMPATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal from the decree of the Civil Judge, Gorakhpur reversing that of the 3rd Additional Munsif and dismissing his suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant-respondents from interfering with his right to use a piece of land and for a mandatory injunction to close up a door and a window opening on this land. The houses of the plaintiff appellant Parmatma Prasad and the defendant-respondent Mst. Sampatti are adjacent with a vacant plot of land between them. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that the strip of land between the two houses belonged to him and he had constructed a latrine on it for his use, that the defendants had recently opened a door and window in the wall of their house facing the vacant plot (and also facing the plaintiff's house); that the defendants had recently demolished a wall of the plaintiff's latrine, and when the plaintiff protested they threatened to assault him. The plaintiff then filed this suit and asked for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his use of the strip of land and for a mandatory injunction requiring them to close up their door and window in their own wall.

(2.) THE defendants resisted the suit and denied that the strip of land or the latrine belonged to him. They asserted that both belonged to them.

(3.) THE defendants appealed and the plaintiff filed a cross-objection. The Civil Judge, disagreeing with the trial court, found that the plaintiff-respondent had not established any title to the land -- not even a possessory title, and was therefore, not entitled to any injunction with regard to this land. He also held that the defendants too had not established their title to the strip of land, but he was of the view that the plaintiff had to establish his own title before he could succeed in his suit. He allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit and also his cross-objection. The latter has come here in second appeal.