SWARN SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant No. 1 has come in appeal against judgment, decree dated 12.1.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 12-D/XIII/97 affirming judgment, decree dated 30.11.1996 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 11/91.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that respondents No. 1 to 3 had filed a suit against the appellant in which respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 were impleaded as defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The suit was for declaration that respondents No. 1 to 3 have acquired right of passage by easement of prescription over the 'maind' (edges) along side the Kuhal comprised in Khasra No. 247, Mohal Jhikli Barol, Mauza Khaniyara and Khasra Nos. 1733 and 1737 measuring 0-08-74 Hectares, Mohal Upperli Barol, Mauza Khaniyara vide jamabandi 1987-88. It was pleaded that respondents No. 1 to 3 had right of passage for ingress and egress to their houses and fields situated on land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1823/1728, 1824/1728 Upperli Barol, Mauza Khaniyara.

(3.) The further case of respondents No. 1 to 3 was that judgment and decree dated 16.11.1988 in Civil Suit No. 3 of 1988 are collusive, fraudulent and void and not binding on respondents No. 1 to 3. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellant and respondents No. 4 to 6 from interfering in the easementary right of passage of respondents No. 1 to 3 was also prayed. It was alleged that in case appellant and respondents No. 4 to 6 succeeded in obstructing the land by raising construction, then a decree for mandatory injunction directing the appellant and respondents No. 4 to 6 to remove the obstruction and to restore the suit land to its original position.