RAM LAL Vs. BACHNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.152 -CA/13 of 2000, dated 15.6.2001 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2000 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Suit No.32/1 of 1993/96/99.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendants. They claimed that they have access to four feet wide path through the suit land. The predecessors -in -interest of the plaintiffs and defendants had purchased their respective lands through sale deeds from a common vendor and the said common vendor granted a specific right of path to each of the vendees through the suit land. The path connects the plots of the defendants and Smt. Bakshi with the main Municipal Committee street. It is further averred that they have acquired a right of easement on the basis of specific grant and also by way of easement of necessity. The land was purchased by them in the year 1947. According to them by way of mutual compromise dated 7.6.1982, the plaintiffs had given to them the originally provided path by the common vendor. They have claimed the path over Khasra No.2698.

(3.) REPLICATION was filed by the plaintiffs. Issues were framed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan on 2.5.1994. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.8.1998 by the learned Senior Sub Judge.The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, dated 17.8.1998 before the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan. The learned District Judge recast issues No.3 and 4 and also framed three more additional issues. The parties were given opportunity to lead their respective evidence.\The plaintiffs tendered in evidence documents Ex.PX -1 to Ex.PX -7, whereas, documents Ex.DX -1 to Ex.DX -3 were placed on record by the defendants. The defendants also filed counter -claim stating therein that after obtaining stay, the plaintiffs took advantage of the holidays and constructed brick walls as shown in the site plan and thereby obstructed the path of the defendants through the suit land. The matter was also reported to the police.