ROOP SINGH Vs. SUNDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of the Regular Second Appeal No. 352/92 and Cross -objection No. 469/92 arising out of the same judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court passed by Shri V.K Sharma, Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, dated 10.6.1992 whereby after modifying the decree of the trial Court, he has passed a decree to the effect that the permanent injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff -respondent -objector and the pro forma defendants and against the contesting defendant i.e. the appellant herein, restraining the latter from causing interference with the suit land, shall be subject to the enjoyment of the customary easement of pathway situated in between Khasra Nos. 153 and 154 which is in existence in the suit land. It has further been ordered that the appellant shall be free to use that path as a customary easement in future as well He has upheld the decree of possession passed by the trial Court in respect of the land comprised in Khasra No. 153/1, measuring four Biswas. In this connection, it may be mentioned here that the judgment and decree of the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff -respondent -objector was passed by Shri R.K. Sharma, Sub -Judge, 1st Class, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, Sirmaur, dated 5.5.1990.

(2.) The plaintiff -respondent -objector filed a suit on the pleadings that he and the pro forma defendants are the owners in possession of the suit land, fully described in the plaint. According to him, the defendant -appellant has no right, title or interest in the suit land and he wanted to dispossess the plaintiff and the pro forma defendants therefrom and with that view he started digging the suit land on 20.6.1986. In these circumstances, the suit was filed initially for grant of a decree of permanent injunction. Subsequently, he amended the plaint and relief of possession was also prayed for in respect of the land measuring four Biswas out of the suit land denoted by Khasra No. 153/1. According to him, the defendant -appellant forcibly occupied the same in the last week of September 1986.

(3.) In the amended written statement, the defendant -appellant contested that the plaintiff -respondent has no cause of action and that the suit is not maintainable. On merits, it was pleaded that the defendant -appellant is using the path in between Khasra Nos. 153 and 154 since time immemorial and that he has perfected the title by way of adverse possession over the suit land.