Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - (1.) JUDGMENT and decree dated 14.1.2004, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2002, is under challenge in the present appeal.
(2.) THE appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the courts below have misread, misinterpreted and misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence of the party especially statement of PW -1, PW -2, PW -3 and PW -5 alongwith spot map Ext. PD, which has materially prejudiced the case of the appellants - The appellants were defendants in the trial Court. It is one Jagat Ram, the predecessor -in -interest of the respondents herein, had filed the suit in the trial Court for the decree of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The land entered in Khata No. 20, Khatauni No. 26, Khasra Nos. 66, 78, 138, 117, 176 and 205, is situated in village Bohin, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. The path to have access thereto starts from land bearing khasra No. 205 of the respondents -plaintiffs and while crossing through the land of other right -holders including khasra No. 176 and 181 connects the land bearing khasra No. 146, owned and possessed by the appellants -defendants and there from this path leads to the land of the plaintiffs bearing khasra No. 66. In order to prove the existence of path, map Ext. PD prepared by PW -5 was produced in evidence. The path in the spot map has been shown with letters A, B and C in red ink. The plaintiffs and their predecessor -in -interest had been using this path to have access to their land bearing khasra No. 66 to carry out the agricultural operations such as ploughing the land, sowing seeds and harvesting the crops etc. etc. openly, uninterruptedly and peacefully.
(3.) AS a matter of fact, the villagers have customary rights to use the land of each others to have access to their fields to carry out agricultural operations. Copy of 'Wazib -ul -arj' Ext. PC has been produced in evidence in this regard. The appellants -defendants somewhere in the month of April, 1996 put barricades over the path at point "B" in the map Ext. PD and blocked the path in question at that point. They did not allow the plaintiffs and their other family members to have access to their land for carrying out agricultural operations, hence the suit for a direction to the appellants -defendants mandatory in nature, i.e., to remove the obstruction they caused over the path at point "B" and to restrain them by way of passing decree for permanent prohibitory injunction from causing obstruction in the path in any manner whatsoever and stopping the plaintiffs from using the path in question.;