JAI PARKASH Vs. RAM NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT is in second appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts of the ease are that plaintiff/respondent herein filed suit for mandatory injunction with a consequential relief of temporary injunction, alleging that plaintiff is the owner in possession of a house in Village Kaimla. Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. A street shown in the site plan Ex. PW3/A. in red colour, is alleged to be a personal street of the plaintiff, which leads from the public street (Gali shar -e -aam) situated in the western side. The said street is used by the plaintiff since the time to his forefathers for approaching their house but the defendant, illegally and forcibly, had encroached upon the street by raising some construction muchless a lintel. The defendant, in his written statement, alleged that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file suit as he is not the owner of the street. The character of the street of private street was also denied. It was alleged that it is a public street constructed by the Gram Panchayat of the village and is being used for ingress and egress of all the inhabitants and residents of the village including the defendant whose houses are situated in front of each other on both sides. West and East, of the street. The doors and windows of both the houses of the defendant open towards the disputed street having projection about two feet wide on each side constructed prior to tiling of the suit. The other inhabitants of the street had also constructed two feet wide projection over their doors and windows. The averments made in the written statement were rebutted by the plaintiff by way of replication and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : -

(3.) RELIEF .