SATINDER BALI Vs. JOGINDER KAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.9.1999 of learned District Judge, whereby affirming the judgment and decree, dated 28.1.1997, of the trial Court, appeal of appellant defendant Satinder Bali, has been dismissed.

(2.) FACTS , relevant for the disposal of the appeal, may be noticed. Respondent/plaintiff Joginder Kaur is a tenant in a double storeyed building, standing on Khasra No. 760, in Mohal Bhojpur, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, under appellant -defendant Satinder Bali. It appears that on the ground floor of the building, there is a shop and the upper floor is used as residence. Joginder Kaur filed a suit for declaration that she had approach to the upper storey of the building through Khasra Nos. 761 and 764, on account of easement of necessity, as there was no alternative passage available. It was stated that Satinder Bali, appellant -defendant had executed an agreement of sale in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 764, through which the plaintiff had a passage, in favour of Rajinder Parshad, respondent, who was impleaded as defendant No. 3, and that the said respondent Rajinder Parshad had stacked stones on the path, as a result of which, it had become impossible for the plaintiff to approach the upper storey of the building. Therefore, in addition to seeking declaration to the aforesaid effect, she sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the respondents -defendants from causing any interference or obstructing the path, running through Khasra No. 764 and leading to the upper storey of the house, occupied by her as a tenant. She filed a tatima of the path, forming part of Khasra No. 764. The same is Ex.PW -3/A.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court held that the plaintiff had no other approach for the first floor of the building and consequently, decreed the suit. Appeal filed by the appellant - -defendant Satinder Bali in the Court of District Judge, stands dismissed, with a slight modification in the decree of the trial Court that the width of the passage, running through Khasra No. 764, shall not be more one meter.