Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal arising out of Original Suit No.270 of 1993 which was dismissed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Firozabad on 9.10.2006. Against the said judgment and decree plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No.17 of 2006 which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Firozabad on 12.1.2012. Cross objections which had been filed by defendants -respondents were also rejected. Plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal from the decree of Lower Appellate Court.
(2.) THE relief claimed in the suit was for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land lying adjacent to the plaintiff's house towards North shown by letters Aa, Ba, Sa, Da in the plaint map. However in the copy of the plaint annexed as Annexure - 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application in this appeal letters are not written on the mp. Land lies in between road (kharanja) and plaintiff's house. It is situated towards North of plaintiff's house and towards West of defendants' house. Amin was also appointed to inspect the spot who submitted his report and map after inspection copy of which is Annexure -2 to the affidavit filed in support of stay application. The land in dispute appears to be seven or eight times more than the house of the plaintiff in area. Part of the disputed land is shown in the form of Chabootra. House of the plaintiff appears to be about 20 feet x 20 feet. The length of the land in dispute is about 75 feet and width of the land towards North side is 17.5 feet and towards southern side is more than double i.e. 38 feet 6 inches. Defendants pleaded that in between chabootra and house of the plaintiff a public rasta intervened on which plaintiff had forcibly encroached and the disputed land except the rasta belonged to the defendants.
(3.) EARLIER in respect of alleged rasta immediately towards North of the plaintiff's house proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. were initiated and spot was inspected by Tehsildar and Kanoongo. The said report alongwith map was filed in the suit apart from Amin's report. In the report of Tehsildar and Kanoongo it was mentioned that there was a rasta which had been blocked by the plaintiff by storing bricks and people of the locality were feeling great difficulty in using the same as rasta.;