(1.) BY this order, I shall dispose of RSA No. 4583 of 20002 and RSA No. 3691 of 2002 as common questions of facts have been raised by the same plaintiff in both the appeals. The facts are being referred from RSA No. 4583 of 2002. Atma Ram plaintiff-petitioner has filed this second appeal assailing the concurrent findings of fact returned by both the Courts below. The Additional District Judge in his judgment and decree has concurred with the findings and has upheld the judgment and decree dated October 23, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra.
(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant filed civil suit No. 359 of 1996 instituted on December 7, 1990 for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant- respondents from installation of doors, windows, ventilators, drainage pipe (Patnala) in the wall described as 'BC', towards the gali (street) situated on eastern side of his house forcibly or illegally or from encroaching upon the said gali (street) either by way of raising construction over the same or in any other manner. The allegations in the plaint made by the plaintiff- appellant are that Jug Lal his father and Parsanna, his uncle respectively purchased a plot from one Roop Ram, which measured 62 ft. on northern side and 58 ft. on southern side and 60 ft on eastern and western side situated at village Budha, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra. According to the plaintiff-appellant, there was a gali (street) towards eastern side as is shown in the site plan attached with the suit and the afore-mentioned gali (street) has been in existence since the inception of the village and the same was there when the plot was purchased by his father and uncle from Roop Ram. The afore-mentioned plot fell to his share in the family settlement and the plaintiff demolished the old construction to build a new house. The construction when reached upto the roof level, he wanted to install windows, doors, ventilators and patnala in the afore-mentioned walls on some portion towards the eastern side of the street but the defendant-respondents do not allow him to do the same as they themselves want to encroach upon the land.
(3.) ISSUES No. 5 and 6 were decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.