KAMLA DEVI Vs. UTTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT is in second appeal before this Court. She is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, on 6th May, 2004, in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997, whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, in Case No. 140 -1 of 1993, on 29th November, 1996, has been affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

(2.) THE controversy lies in a narrow compass, as the dispute is qua the path the appellant/defendant using to have access to her adjoining land for cultivation purposes and other allied agricultural pursuits. The parties to the suit are none else, but in close relations, being brother -in -law (Devar) and sister -in -law (Bhabhi).

(3.) THE response of the defendant, as disclosed from the written statement in a nutshell, is that there exists village path over the suit land and the same is being used by her and other villagers for the last more than 20 years by way of customary easement, as according to her, custom to use such path in existence on the boundary of Khasra No. 305 to have access to the adjoining land is old, continuous, peaceful, reasonable, certain and compulsory. Such path is allegedly shown in red -dotted line in the Tatima on record. Thus, there is no question of causing any interference by her over the suit land and rather she and other family members are enjoying the path in question passing through the boundary of Khasra No. 305 to have access to their adjoining land. As per her further case, there is no other path available to her to have access to her land. A frivolous suit allegedly has been filed against her because she allegedly is enjoying the path in existence over Khasra No. 305 as a right of customary easement for the last more than 20 years, continuously and without any interruption. It has been reiterated that the villagers by way of customary rights use the adjoining land to have access to their land and such rights are old. The allegations that she has been throwing water over the suit land have also been denied, being wrong.