AMIR CHAND Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.9.1979 passed by Addl. District Judge, Sonepat who by affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1978 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Gohana dismissed the appeal of the defendant- appellants.

(2.) THE pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner :- Ram Lal plaintiff-respondent filed a Civil Suit for injunction against the defendant Remal Dass on 3.11.19732 praying that the defendant be restrained from raising any construction on the land marked as ABCDEF in the site plan Ex. P5 as the disputed site is a part of public street and adjoins his residential house situated at Gohana. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant wanted to raise illegal construction over the disputed site which is a part of public street and, therefore, he should be restrained from raising any construction in the shape of a Chabutra.

(3.) THE parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and at one point of time the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. He filed an appeal and the case was remanded to the trial Court after framing the additional issue. This time the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 219.4.1978 by holding under issue No. 1 that the disputed site form part of the public street. This issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Additional issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was observed by the trial court that after the inspection of the site it is proved that the width of the street adjoining between the houses of the plaintiff and Sube Ram towards north-east of the house of Ram Ji Dass the width is 5-3/4 ft. and the width of the street adjoining the house of Remal Dass and Sube Ram is 10 ft. Under the additional issue the learned trial court also held that the site in dispute denoted by the letters ABCDEF is falling within that measurement as is clear from the perusal of the map Ex. P5. Finally, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court and the defendant was injuncted upon from raising any construction over the site in dispute.