CHATTAR SINGH Vs. GAURI SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff wherein he had claimed injunction against the defendants for restraining them from causing interference in his using path existing on abadi deh land for facilitating his accessing his house. However, in an appeal carried therefrom by the aggrieved defendants before the First Appellate Court, the latter Court reversed the verdict of the learned trial Court. The plaintiff standing aggrieved by the pronouncement of the learned First Appellate Court has proceeded to through the instant appeal assail it herebefore.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the lis inter se the parties are that the plaintiff is permanent resident of Muhal Ahju/10, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and owns a considerable property there. House of the plaintiff is stated to be built over abadi deh land comprised in khasra No. 487/1 and is in existence for last more than 90 years which requires immediate repairs. It is further averred that defendants without any right and authority are creating active interference on the path existing on the spot and leading to the house of the plaintiff and they are not allowing him to carry any building material for repair of the said house and are also not allowing him to repair the path by laying pucca cemented concrete. This path is alleged to be existing between khasra No. 79 and 490 and passes through one side of the court yard of the house of the defendants and then it reaches to the house of the plaintiff. This path is in existence since the time of the forefathers and has always been peacefully used and enjoyed as a matter of right. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement wherein they have taken preliminary objection qua maintainability, cause of action etc. On merits, it is admitted that the house of the plaintiff exists over abadi deh land. It is denied that there is any passage over the abadi deh land ever enjoyed by the plaintiff and others. It is further stated that allegations are vague for want of any spot map and measurement of the passage. Other allegations are denied and it is stated that the suit is without any merits and it be dismissed.