KULWANT RAI AND OTHERS Vs. KAUSHALYA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Legal representatives of plaintiff-Ram Kumar(since deceased) are in second appeal against the judgements and decrees of courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-Ram Kumar was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the appellate court.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Ram Kumar plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging therein that he was owner in possession of the bara ADEF and using the same since his birth as the bara in question was owned and possessed by his forefathers. It was further alleged that house and bara of the defendants/respondents was situated in the street and that defendants wanted to forcibly encroach upon a portion of his bara for creating a passage for their bara from the street situated in the west of his house and bara. Accordingly, a prayer was made to restrain the defendants from interfering in his actual physical possession over the portion of the bara marked by letters ABCD shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint.

(3.) Upon notice defendants 1 to 4 filed joint written statement contesting the suit on various grounds. On merits it was alleged that suit property was a five feet wide passage from point AB to main galli (street) in the east and that in the south and north thereof exists the property of the plaintiffs and defendants. It was further alleged that property ABCD is a passage; BCEF is the property of the plaintiff and his brother and in the east of BCEF the property of the defendants was situated. It was also alleged that plaintiff had constructed a wall at point CE as well as in the south of the passage in question and that a five feet wide passage had already been left by the plaintiff himself, as the distance between points D and C is five feet.