- (1.) This is defendant's second appeal which has been admitted solely for the consideration of the following question which has been formulated by the Hon'ble Judge : "As to whether on the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the defendants were having their shops either, permanent or moveable and were doing business on the Patri of the road for the last more than twenty years, a decree could be passed merely on the ground that the plaintiff had a right of frontgage of his premises without determining the reasonable extent of the frontage."
(2.) For the decision of this question facts may be briefly stated thus : A suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent for a mandatory injunction seeking the removal of certain structures said to have been unlawfully constructed by the defendants over a piece of land marked by letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H stated to constitute the frontage of the plaintiff's house. The allegation was that the structures had the effect of obstructing the access of plaintiff to a public road which lies in front of the plaintiff's house with a roadside 'Patri' intervening. The plaint case was that the plaintiff had an undoubted right of frontage to enable him to have access to the public road which access stands denied to him in consequence of the tinshed and other structures constructed by the defendant on the 'patri' which indisputably vests in the Public Works Department.
(3.) The defendants filed separate written statements but the substance of their defence was that the plaintiff had no concern with the land over which the structures complained of are standing. Pleas of limitation and estoppel were also raised by them.;