SHISHIR KUMAR SINGH Vs. JITENDRA NATH MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The appellant, who was plaintiff in the original suit, has challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.08.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, District Bahraich in Civil Appeal No.09 of 2007, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.

(3.) In brief, the facts of the case as set out in the appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction bearing Original Suit No.971 of 1996 titled as 'Shishir Kumar Singh vs. Jitendra Nath Misra'. The case of the appellant was that Smt. Malti Singh was owner in possession of plot situated in Village Chhavani Sarkar Mohalla Ghasiyaripura (Nauvagari), Pargana, Tehsil and District Bahraich which is shown as ACEH in the site plan; Smt. Malti Singh had left six feet land on the western side of her plot which is situated at southern side of BC for using as passage of ABGH; the said plot which is shown as ABGH was sold to the appellant/plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 24.06.1994 and the possession was delivered; it was agreed between the appellant/plaintiff and Smt. Malti Singh that the said six feet wide passage would belong to the appellant/plaintiff and later on due to avoid inconvenience, said passage be widened 9 feet and, therefore, 9 feet passage was left for the appellant/plaintiff which is shown as BCDI in the site plan. The appellant constructed house on the land which is shown as ABGH and the only passage for egress and ingress is shown as BCDI. Later on Smt. Malti Singh sold the plot shown as JFGI to the appellant/plaintiff on 19.09.1996 and delivered the possession. It was alleged that defendant/respondent took the land which is shown as DEFJ from Smt. Malti Singh and started raising construction in September, 1996, and alleged that the defendants are intending to get permission to open a door and window in BCDI with the help of wrong facts. The defendant/respondent intended to cover the disputed passage which is shown as BCDI and threatened to take possession of the said land. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction.