Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising our of a suit for injunction regarding a rasta, filed on the ground that the defendant's house exists towards south of the plaintiff's house, the plaintiff approaches her house through X a rasta, 14 ft. wide and 36 ft. long. The defendants were tying cattle etc. on this rasta, which leads upto defendants' house creating a problem for the plaintiff regarding this rasta proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C were initiated at the instance of the plaintiff and therein, an order of status quo, is operating. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants raised a wall on account of which the ventilator and main door of the plaintiff's house have been blocked and the rasta which was 14 ft. wide stands reduced to only 3 ft. in width.
(2.) The suit was decreed by the trial court. However in appeal the judgement and decree of the trial court has been reversed and the suit was dismissed.
(3.) The first contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the defendants had admitted the existence of the rasta and, therefore, the lower appellate court had committed manifest illegality in reversing the decree of the trial court. Reliance has been placed upon Nathoo Lal vs. Durga Prasad, 1954 AIR(SC) 355. This judgement holds that an admission by a party must be presumed to be true unless the contrary is shown.;