URMILA DEVI Vs. RAM DHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Sri S. K. Mehrotra advocate for the defendant-respondents.

(2.) THE plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-respondents from interfering in the rights of plaintiff in use of the land as passage as well as for removal of charan, nad etc., which was kept by the defendants-respondents on the disputed land. THE case of the plaintiff is that the disputed land i.e. Plot No. 1254 was purchased in the year 1983 and thereafter a house was constructed in the year 1985. THE disputed land was only passage for egress and ingress to the plaintiff's house. It was also pleaded that the defendants have started collecting building material, i.e., sand, bricks etc. with an intention to make construction and completely stop the passage which will cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff. THE defendants disputed the claim of the plaintiff. THE land which was appurtenant to the defendants' house was used since a very very long time much before the plaintiff purchased plot No. 1254 and constructed a house. In fact they are owners and the plaintiff has no right whatsoever.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has tried to emphasize on three substantial questions of law which he has framed but was not able to substantiate that the judgment of the lower appellate court suffers from any substantial error formulated in the memo of appeal. The finding of the trial court that the plaintiff has two passage for egress and ingress was neither challenged nor set aside by the lower appellate court and I do not think that this Court can interfere in the findings arrived at by the courts below which is based on sound reasonings. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff has acquired easementary right is without any basis. There is no such claim in the plaint and it is not disputed that the suit was instituted within two years from the date of purchase of the land and, therefore, the courts below were absolutely correct in refusing the claim of easementary right specially in absence of any pleadings to that effect.