TEJA SINGH ALIAS TEJ SINGH Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar on 25.8.1986 by which the appeal filed by Teja Singh, defendant-appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree by the trial Court on 16.1.1985 was upheld.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that land measuring 34 K 7 M bearing Rec. No. 37 Killa Nos. 4, 5, 3, 2, 1 Khata and Khatauni Nos. 73, 115, 116, 117, Khata No. 90, 146, 148 in village Khatrai Khurd, Teh. Ajnala District Amritsar has been purchased by the plaintiff-respondent and defendants No. 2 to 4 from Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Harbans Singh and Manohar Singh son of Harbans Singh vide sale deed dated 29.7.1977, land measuring 35 K-15 M bearing Rec. No. 37 Kills Nos. 11, 7, 8, 13 and 14, Khata and Khatauni No. 66, 96 and 97 from Harbans Singh vide sale deed dated 15.1.1977 and land measuring 22 K-7 M bearing Rec. No. 37 Kills No. 9, 10, 12 Khata and Khatauni No. 66, 96, 88 and 141 from Harbans Singh son of Teja Singh vide sale deed dated 7.4.1977. It was also averred in the plaint that along with the land, the plaintiff- respondents and defendants No. 2 to 4 purchased the passage two Karams wide from Harbans Singh, Manohar Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur from their land in Rec. No. 35, Killa Nos. 1, 10 and 11. min charda. It has been further pleaded that the passage has been in existence for the last more than 30 years and the plaintiffs and other co-villagers have been passing through this passage and they have acquired the right of easement over the said passage and that the said passage is in the fields of the plaintiff and the said passage is also connected with the Pucca road.

(3.) Defendant-appellant Teja Singh contested the suit of the plaintiffs inter-alia on the ground that the suit is barred under order 23 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code because the previous suit filed by the plaintiffs has been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh suit. It was also averred in the written statement that the plaintiffs have no locus standi and have No cause of action to file the suit. It was further averred that there exists no passage as alleged by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the plaint.