SATYA NARAIN BHAGAT Vs. PANNA LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is by the plaintiffs. By the impugned order their petition for amendment of the plaint has been rejected.

(2.) THE plaintiff petitioners filed Title Suit No. 34 of 1994 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Patna, for a declaration that the suit land marked by crosslines in red colour in the sketch map attached with the plaint measuring 38.2' x 10' is the common passage of the parties and the defendants have no right to encroach upon any portion of it, and for direction to the defendants to remove all encroachments and obstructions therefrom. Shortly stated, their case is that they purchased the suit land by registered sale deeds in the years 1978 and 1979 and constructed house on its Northern portion. The land opens on Exhibition Road on the East connected by Sahyogi Press lane or Sahyogi Marg. On the North also the land has a opening on the S.P Verma road. The petitioners in order to have easy access to Exhibition Road provided a 10' wide road East to West (in continuation of Sahyogi Marg) and sold land south of it to the defendants under three registered sale deeds dated 31.7.82. The portion immediately south measuring 1 Katha 10 dhurs was sold to defendant No. 1 and the remaining portion on further south was sold to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 separately. The suit land (38.2' 10' strip of road referred to above) was to be used as the common passage. In the sale deed of defendant No. 1, whose purchased land is situate on its immediate south, the suit land has been described as common Rasta. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants did not pay any consideration money for the suit land. According to the plaintiffs further, they have erected two pillars on the two sides at the eastern end of the suit land and provided an iron gate. On 3.1.91 the defendants dismantled the Southern pillar and removed the gate. They also collected the building material and asked the plaintiffs not to use the suit land as passage. Hence the suit.

(3.) AT this stage the case of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are husband and wife and have filed a common written statement, may briefly be stated as follows. The defendants admitted that the plaintiffs have purchased the land described in Schedule A of the written statement, broadly corresponding to Schedule I of the plaint, who subsequently sold portions thereof described in Schedules B and E to them under two registered sale deeds. They also admitted that the portion of the land was left to be used as common Rasta both by the plaintiffs and the defendants. They have described the said land in Schedule C. The land described in Schedule C of the written statement corresponds to the suit land described in Schedule II of the plaint except that as per Schedule 11 of the plaint it has an area of 38.2' 10'; in Schedule C, its area is shown as 33' 10'. The description of the land shown in Schedule 11 and Schedule C otherwise is the same.