LAWS(RAJ)-2014-7-48

SANATAN DHARAM COMMITTEE SANDERAO Vs. KHIMARAM

Decided On July 02, 2014
Sanatan Dharam Committee Sanderao Appellant
V/S
Khimaram Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.1.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sumerpur, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs -respondents for permanent and mandatory injunction has been partially decreed and against the judgment and decree dated 24.5.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sumerpur, whereby while appeal filed by the respondents has been dismissed, the cross -objection filed by the appellant has also been rejected.

(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiffs Khimaram and Bansi Lal filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction with the averments that in village Sanderao on National Highway No. 14, a bus stand and temple of Ramdev Ji is situated, on South to the said temple a public way comprised in Khasra No. 1118 ad measuring 0.04 Htr. is situated and is the main way for residents of Sanderao for going into their fields. The way was about 60 -65 fts. wide, however, the defendant has constructed the shops and has reduced the same to 30 -35 fts. and is bent upon further narrowing the same; the defendant has constructed a toilet about six months back on the Southern side of the public way; as the defendant is powerful and husband of the Sarpanch, nobody in the village opposed; the defendant is bent upon constructing further shops on the public way and therefore, the defendant needs to be injected from trespassing on the public way; the toilet constructed by trespassing on the public way ad measuring 6' x 5' needs to be removed which is causing obstruction in the way and the same has been constructed without seeking permission from the competent authority and therefore, a mandatory injunction be issued.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed four issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, four witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant, six witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited.