(1.) This regular second appeal arises out of the decision of District Judge, Chamba, in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1988, decided on 28 -10 -1988, By this decision, the first appellate Court has declined to interfere with the decision of Sub -Judge, III Class, Chamba, in Civil Suit No 29/88, decided on 26 3 -1988.
(2.) Shortly slated, the plaintiffs filed suit for permanent, prohibitory and mandatory injunction seeking relief that defendant No. 1 bad blocked their and proforma -defendants passage and drainage etc., comprised in Khasra No. 1241/663/4, present Khasra No 1241/663/2, South terrace of Khasra No. 1583/1241 and old Khasra No. 1241/663/2, present Khasra No 1241/663 on raised terrace amid land measuring 10 X 1 Karam and old Khasra No. 14S2/1241/2, present Khasra numbers 1587/1482 on the West terrace and old Khasra No. 1241/663/2 and present Khasra No. 1241/663 of East Terrace, land measuring 12 X 1 Karam. it is also stated that defendant No. 3 sold his land to the plaintiffs and at the time of sale, granted the right of passage in their favour and proforma defendant No. 2. The suit seeks to restrain defendant Aditya Kumar Bhanot from raising any obstruction to the passage claimed as easement of necessity on account of the non -availability of alternative path. Demolition of obstructions caused on the passage and the drainage has also been sought.
(3.) The defendant has opposed the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs though it has been admitted that the plaintiffs purchased the land from Nidhia (defendant No 3) but it has been denied that any kind of passage has been provided to the plaintiffs through the land in question. It is also the case of this defendant that he purchased five biswas of land from the third defendant alongwith passage which crosses Chamba Bharmour Road but he is in possession of the land less than what had been purchased by him Allegations relating to the obstruction of path and drainage have been denied like the easement of necessity pleaded by the plaintiffs.