Arun Palli, J. - (1.) CM No. 5816 -C of 2014 For the reasons set out in the application, delay of 17 days in re -filing the appeal, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. CM No. 5815 -C of 2014 For the reasons set out in the application, delay of 03 days in filing the appeal, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. RSA No. 2452 of 2014(O & M)
(2.) SUIT filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.02.2011. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was accordingly dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2013. That is how, the defendants are before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit. In a suit filed by the plaintiffs, they prayed for a decree for permanent injunction, praying that defendants No. 1 and 2 be restrained from forcibly and illegally occupying the land of common way (passage) shown in red colour in the lay out plan, which passes through in between the two properties i.e. House No. 72 and 73 and also in front of House No. 58, Palam Vihar -B, Ambala Cantt. And also from raising any wall or barricades over the land of the passage, blocking the approach of the plaintiffs and other residents of the locality of Palam Vihar -B and Ganesh Vihar, to their houses. Further, a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants from removing the obstruction in passage by demolition of walls ABCD shown in the site plan. It was averred that the plaintiffs were permanent residents and were owners of the houses situated in the said locality. Many of the residents had purchased the land for building their respective houses, from defendant No. 1, who happened to be a coloniser and a property dealer. At the time of the sale of the said land, defendant No. 1 and his associates colonisers had shown the lay out plan of the area in the year 1989 -90. The said lay out plan showed a passage in between the property/House No. 72 and 73 and in front of House No. 58. The passage in question was the only way connecting the two colonies i.e. Ganesh Vihar and Palam Vihar. It was maintained that the plaintiffs had constructed their house about 10 to 12 years ago and were, thus, using the said passage since then. There was not any plot, shown as plot No. 72 -A, in the first lay out plan. Defendants No. 1 and 2 attempted to usurp the land of the passage by encroaching thereupon. Plaintiffs got to know that a sale deed regarding some land including the suit passage had been executed in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4, who happened to be the parents of defendant No. 1. Defendants had raised two walls marked with letters AB and CD shown in the site plan. Thus, the suit.
(3.) DEFENDANTS , pleaded in defence that the plaintiffs might have purchased the plots in Palam Vihar for construction of their respective houses. But there exists no such passage as was being purported. However, there indeed exists a plot No. 72 -A, which was now constructed with boundary walls. Further, the purchaser of the said plot had every right to construct the same as per his requirement.;