BANARSI DAS Vs. PRABHATI DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment of reversal dated 10.10.2012 passed by the District Judge, Narnaul vide which the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.1.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mahendergarh was accepted. Vide the trial Court judgment dated 29.1.2010 the suit of the plaintiff -respondent no.1 was dismissed with costs.

(2.) THE suit of the plaintiff was that she was owner in possession of a plot as shown in the site plan as GHIJ and on the northern side of the plot was the property of Doctor Surat Singh, on the southern side of the plot were houses of defendant and Rattan Lal and Ram Saran, on the eastern side of the plot house of Puran Mal and in the western side of the plot was the land of Bhana Ram Saini and plaintiff had constructed boundary wall over her plot and using the same as guwara. It was stated that there was a passage 9 feet wide and 85 feet long as shown in the site plan as ABCD (hereinafter referred to as suit property) and plaintiff is also using this rasta connected with Nagar Palika road. There was no other passage to go inside the plot of the plaintiff -respondent no.1. Appellant -defendant no.1 had constructed forcibly and illegally a latrine measuring 4 -1/2 x 5 feet at mark A and has constructed a wall measuring 9 x 2 -1/2 feet at mark B and has closed the rasta at mark AB. The construction has been done over more than his share and the defendant is asserting his ownership over his rasta. Defendant no.2 had also colluded with defendant no.1 and no proceedings were initiated against defendant no.1 by Nagar Palika. It was also stated that plaintiff has written a letter dated 21.7.2003, 12.8.2003 to Nagar Palika for restraining defendant no.1 from raising construction and removing the latrine and wall, but no proceedings were initiated against defendant no.1.

(3.) DEFENDANT no.2 filed a separate written statement stating therein that Nagar Palika had nothing to do with the ownership as well as possession over the rasta and the rasta was left by the owners from own land for the user. It was stated that there was a private dispute between plaintiff and defendant no.1 and plaintiff wants to forcibly encroach upon the rasta. There was no record in the Nagar Palika regarding ownership of the rasta and Nagar Palika has not given permission to construct latrine and boundary wall over the rasta.