TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,J. - (1.) A suit seeking relief for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from interfering in the use of a 2 karams wide passage/Rasta was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 11.5.2006. A civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellants has been accepted by the District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment dated 20.10.2008 whereby the judgment of the trial Court has been set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been decreed and the defendants have been restrained from interfering in the use of the 2 karams wide passage/Rasta existing on the Eastern side of the rectangle No.92, killa No.16. Resultantly, the defendant-appellants are in second appeal before this Court.
(2.) I have heard Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the appellants and Mr.Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the respondents. There would be no dispute as regards the factual position that the estate which was previously owned by Deena and Hazari was severed into two parts. The land comprised in rectangle No.92, killa No.16 came to vest with the present appellants and the other part comprised in rectangle No.92, killa Nos.25/1 and 25/2 came to vest with the present respondents. It is also an admitted position of fact that a Rasta was sanctioned to Deena and Hazari upto the Northern-Southern corner of killa No.16, rect.No.92. The further admitted position of fact is that prior to the severance of the estate owned and possessed by Deena and Hazari, the land comprised in rectangle No.92, killa Nos.25/1 and 25/2 was approached through killa No.16 of rectangle No.92.
(3.) THERE would be no dispute as regards the position in law that if an estate is severed into two parts and that there is no passage to the severed part of the estate, then such transferee would have a right of easement by way of necessity, which was being enjoyed prior to severance of the estate into two parts.;