PANO DEVI Vs. DILA RAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.I, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 30/2009 dated 01.06.2016, vide which suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed against the appellant by respondents-plaintiffs stood decreed and also the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge(II), Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 117/2016 dated 11.07.2016, vide which appeal filed by appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial stood dismissed.

(2.) The case was heard today for the purpose of admission. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are as under. Respondent-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed a suit that they were owners in possession of land comprised in Khewat No. 70, Khatauni No. 70, Khasra Nos. 100 and 101. On the said land plaintiffs had constructed their houses and Cow-shed. There was a path on the land in Khewat No. 70, Khatauni No. 70, Khasra Nos. 100 and 101, belonging to the defendants. Said path was being used by plaintiffs, since the time immemorial. There was also a path in Khasra No. 97 and said path was being used peacefully by the plaintiffs for the last 60 years to have access to their land as also to their house. Defendants had no right to obstruct said paths. Despite this defendants started obstructing the paths. Proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated, but they were closed as the path (in khasra No. 100 and 101) was not found to be a public path. Suit was thus filed, praying for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant from obstructing the use of the path by the plaintiffs.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant, inter alia, on the ground that the same was barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC and also on merit. Defendants admitted the factum of plaintiffs being owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 102 and 103. However, they denied that there was any path upon land comprised Khasra No. 100 and 101. Existence of path on land comprised in Khasra No. 97 was admitted. Any obstruction being caused by them was denied.