MACHINDER PAL Vs. BHAGWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No. 1, Una, dated January 29, 2001 as upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Una vide his judgment dated December 7, 2004. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering or encroaching on any part of his land subject-matter of the dispute and further from carving any passage, cutting and removing the trees from the said land.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner in possession of the land in question but the defendants being strong headed, threatened to encroach on the land and are bent upon to widen the path existing path encroaching on the land. The defendants resist the suit controverting the allegations. The ownership and possession of the pLalntiff over the land in question is admitted. However, their case is that there are trees located on khasra numbers 106 and 107 which is a public passage under the control of the Panchayat. The land of the pLalntiff is adjacent to this public passage and it is the pLalntiff who wants to encroach upon the public passage and grab the trees located on this land.

(3.) Learned trial Judge after appreciation of the evidence found that even on the own admission of the pLalntiff a path which adjoins his land exists but the pLalntiff maintain that this public path is only one meter in width. The Kanungo who appeared in defence (DW2) categorically states that the width of the public path is three mtrs. The trial Judge concluded it is the pLalntiff who intends encroaching upon the public passage. The trial Court also held that there is no evidence to show that the defendants ever threatened to encroach on the land owned and possessed by the pLalntiff. In the absence of the cause of action, his suit was dismissed.