GATSTGA DIN SONAR Vs. JAGAT TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties to this suit are residents of a village named Sanadra in the Gorakhpur District. Neither party has any zemindari right in the village, but both are residents occupying house sites in the village. The plaintiff owns a house in the village appertaining to which is a courtyard bearing No. 226 which has always been in his possession and occupation, and a strip of land bearing No. 205 is the passage or pathway to this house. The plaintiff s case is that he has no other passage or way for egress or ingress to his house. He alleges that the defendant has recently taken possession of the plaintiff s courtyard and has commenced to build a house on it. He has also blocked up the passage to the plaintiff s house by building a wall across, it. He sues for the possession of the land and the demolition of the constructions put upon it by the defendants. He also, prays for the demolition of the Avail put up on plot No. 205, so as to permit the plaintiff to have access to his house by the passage land marked as No. 205. The suit was filed on 14th May 1912.

(2.) The defence to the suit is that the land over which possession is claimed by the plaintiff is not a courtyard appertaining to the house of the plaintiff, but is a piece of waste land of the village which he has occupied with the permission of the zemindars since about eight years, that the house built thereon by the defendant has been in course of erection for about a year and a half without any let or hinderance on the part of the plaintiff, who has been a passive spectator thereof. They further allege that they have not blocked up any passage to the plaintiff s house, and urge that the claim in respect of it is altogether absurd and ridiculous.

(3.) Apart from the question of valuation, which was also put in issue, the Court of first instance framed four issues for trial in the following terms: 2. Is the land on which the defendants have made the disputed construction sahan (courtyard) of the plaintiff? 3. Had the plaintiff any path to his house on the land the defendants have made constructions (upon)P If so was it the only path, or he had some other path?