UMRAO Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 16.2.2008 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kishangarhbas, Alwar (hereinafter referred as the "appellate court") in Civil Appeal No.20 of 2002, whereby the appellate court has allowed the said appeal filed by the respondents-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) and Judl. Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, Alwar (hereinafter referred as the "trial court") in Civil Suit No.83 of 1994.

(2.) IT was the case of the appellant-plaintiff before the trial court that on the northern side of the plot of the appellant there is a 15 ft. wide way which was being encroached upon by the defendants by trying to put up construction thereon. According to appellants-plaintiffs, if such construction was permitted, his way to approach his plot would be closed and he would not be able to take his carts through the said way. The said suit was resisted by the respondents-defendants denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending interalia that the way was 5 ft. wide only. It was also contended that earlier the dispute was also raised by the respondents before the Panchayat and the Panchayat vide the order dated 18.12.1981 has decided the matter in favour of defendants. It was also contended that the compromise was entered into between the parties in presence of villagers on 21.12.1994 and hence the appellant-plaintiff was bound by the said compromise. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record vide the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2002 decreed the suit of appellant-plaintiff, against which the appeal being No. 20 of 2002 was preferred by the respondents-defendants. The appellate court vide the impugned order dated 16.2.2008 allowed the said appeal, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and to the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court as well as the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, it appears that the appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit for injunction with regard to his right to way. As per the appellant plaintiff, the said way was 15 ft. wide whereas as per the respondents- defendants it was only 5 ft wide. The appellate court considering the evidence on record has allowed the appeal of respondents-defendants, and the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the appellate court.