GURNAM SINGH AND ORS. Vs. DHARAMPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 10188-C of 2014

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the record, I find that the case of the plaintiff respondent as stated in the plaint is that the door of the house of the plaintiff open in the disputed street and the plaintiff has been living along with his family members and has been enjoying the street for ingress and outgress for the last many years. The street from phirni/road starting from southern to northern side from the house of Gurmeet Singh, which is being used by public and residents of the vicinity, has been left by the Gram Panchayat upto the house of the plaintiff. The street has been bricked paved, which has been used by the plaintiff, defendants and other inhabitants of the village. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendants are planning to encroach upon street at point ABCD by making construction for which they have absolutely no right.

(3.) On the other hand, the defendant's case in the written statement before the lower Court is that site plan submitted by the plaintiff is wrong. The defendants have also denied that any street as alleged by the plaintiff on the western side of house is in existence. The defendants have further alleged that the street in portion shown as ABCD in the site plan of the plaintiff, is part of the house of the defendants. The defendants have also denied that the phirni from southern to northern side has been left by the Gram Panchayat as alleged by the plaintiff and it has been brick paved by the Gram Panchayat as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants further submitted that they are residing in their house for the last 35 years and have affixed a gate at point 'D' and at point 'AB' a room is in existence for the last many years. The defendants also alleged that 4000 to 5000 bricks are also lying in the portion of the property which is alleged to be street by the plaintiff.