BHAGU AND ORS. Vs. RAM SARUP AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short but question of some complexity raised in this Second Appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the Court. It arises on the following facts.

(2.) PLAINTIFF -respondent Ram Sarup filed the present suit on 18th July, 1978 with the allegations that out of the two plots Nos. 208 and 212 situated in village Dhadoli, Tehsil Safidon, district Jind, the first one is owned by him and the latter is a public street. He and the pro forma defendants in the suit were utilising this street as an approach to their houses for the last more than 30 years. The defendants -appellants being headstrong people not only threatened to dispossess him from plot No. 208 but had actually constructed a 6' high wall in the thoroughfare, i.e. on plot No. 212, and, thus, caused obstruction in the free passage to his house and also to the houses of other defendants. Thus, he sought a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from raising any construction or interference in his possession over plot No. 208 and prayed for a mandatory injunction directing these appellants to demolish the wall and the other construction and to restore the thoroughfare to its original position. The appellants contested the suit denying the above -mentioned allegations. The parties were put to trial on the following issues: - -

(3.) THE answer to the controversy raised is apparently dependant on knowing of the true content and scope of the present S. 13 of the Act. In the first flush, the language of the section undoubtedly appears to support the stand of the counsel for the appellants, yet on a deeper consideration we find that the same is untenable.