Paramjit Singh Patwalia, J. - (1.) THIS regular second appeal of plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.03.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Palwal whereby suit for permanent injunction filed by appellant -plaintiff has been dismissed and against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1998 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby appeal preferred by appellant -plaintiff has also been dismissed. For convenience sake, hereinafter, reference to parties is being made as per their status in civil suit.
(2.) THE detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction with the averments that he is owner in possession of a plot bearing khewat/khatoni No. 3680/4481, rect. No. 130 killa No. 14/3/3(0 -14) situated within the municipal limits of Palwal City, Tehsil Palwal. It was pleaded that defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and it never remained in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff also filed a suit against Nanak Chand regarding the suit property and appeal arising from the said suit is also pending. The defendant allegedly threatened to construct a road through the suit property for which it has no right. The plaintiff asked the defendant not to construct the road on the suit property, but to no avail. Hence, suit was filed. Upon notice, the defendant resisted the suit and filed written statement taking preliminary objections of maintainability, locus standi and estoppel. On merits, it was pleaded that neither the plaintiff nor his vendors or his attorney Tilak Raj was owner in possession of the disputed killa No. 14/3/3. In civil suit titled 'Hari Singh etc. v. Tilak Raj etc.', the suit land has been declared as public passage. It was further pleaded that doors of the residents of Devi Nagar Colony, Palwal open in the disputed property. The defendant has constructed a pucca public street for egress and ingress for the public and the same is being maintained by the defendant. The pucca drains are also passing through the disputed property which are being maintained and looked after by the defendant.
(3.) REPLICATION , controverting the allegations made in written statement and reiterating the averments made in plaint, was also filed.;