SUNDER SINGH Vs. RATTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants-appellants have come up in regular second appeal against the judgment of reversal dated 11.05.1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar, whereby appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondents against the judgment and decreed dated 28.05.1984 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Kharar, had been accepted and their suit for mandatory injunction had been decreed with costs.

(2.) Rattan Singh and Gurbax Singh-plaintiffs (since deceased) filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants (appellants herein) to restore the path in dispute, which was obstructed by the defendants by fixing barbed wires. It was alleging that during consolidation proceedings in village Saini Majra, Ran Singh son of Ram Dayal was allotted a residential plot No.126. Against the said allotment, Ran Singh filed an appeal under the Consolidation Act, whereupon the Settlement Officer made certain changes in the plots of Nathu alias Natha Singh and Smt. Narati widow of Sarwan Singh by providing a shorter path No.137 (2 Karams in width). Southern side of the plots of Natha Singh and Smt. Narati was given to aforesaid Ran Singh by linking path No.137 to the path passing for neighbouring villages for going to Kharar through the village common land. However, the persons occupying the common land along the path had started encroaching upon the portion of that path. By doing so, they had shortened the width of the path in question. Against this unlawful act, plaintiff No.1 made complaints to the village Panchayat vide applications dated 18.01.1982 and 19.04.1982. Upon this, the path opposite to the house of Gurbax Singh was got widened by the village Panchayat on 25.04.1982 to the extent of 2 karams from Kuldip Singh etc. along the portion marked as AB in the site plan attached with the plaint. However, the defendants, who had encroached upon other portion of the path did not agree to vacate their illegal encroachments. They had caused obstruction on the path in question by fixing the barbed wire.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants-appellants by filing a written statement. It was alleged that the site in dispute was not a path, but was their ancestral property. It was further stated that the site in dispute was part of a village street and vested in Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.