C.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction.
(2.) THE houses of the parties are situated in a blind alley in the town of Baran. The width of the lane where it meets the main road is said to be 10' -8'. As one proceeds inside the lane for after about 13' the width of the lane is reduced on account of there being a 'Chabutri' in front of the defendant's house. The plaintiff's house is situated almost at the end of the lane. The plaintiff's case is that he had purchased this house from the defendant's maternal grand -father Gendilal in 1950 A D. and reconstructed ' it in 1951. It is alleged that the lane is being used for carrying a bullock cart to the plaintiff's house for the last more than 30 years. But the defendant some time in the month of Posh Samvat 2014, placed two stone -pillars one adjacent to the corner the 'Chabutri' of his house and the other just opposite to it with the result that the widh of the lane at that point was reduced to 5'. The two stones which are alleged to have been placed by the defendant have been marked as points Nos. 1 and 2 in the site plan Ex. 1 attached to the plaint, The plaintiff also alleged that he constructed a door in his house opening towards the northern of his house but the defendant unlawfully raised a wall in front of the door and there by blocked the passage. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted the present suit on 14 -3 -1958 praying that the dependant, be directed to remove the stones from the lane so as to restore its former width of 6 and a perpetual injunction be also issued against him not to make any encroachment in the lane in future It was also prayed that the wall constructed by him in front of the plaintiff's door be ordered to be removed, and the plaintiff may be awarded Rs. 250/ - as damages. The defendant denied the plaintiff's suit and pleaded that no bullock cart has ever been taken through the lane to the plaintiff's house as the lane is too narrow for taking a bullock cart through it. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had unlawfully opened a door on the defendant's land and that he had right to raise a wall on his own land to which the plaintiff can have possibly no objection. Both the parties examined a number of witnesses and also produced several documents in support of their respective cases, and the learned Munsiff by his judgment and decree dated 30 -3 -1962 held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that bullock carts were being taken inside the lane for the last 30 years as pleaded by him. He also came to the conclusion that the defendant had not reduced the width of the lane from 6' to 5' as alleged by the plaintiff. As regards the obstruction of the plaintiff's door by the defendant by raising a wall just in front of it, the learned Munsiff held that the plaintiff had failed to substantiate the case set up by him. In the result he dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
(3.) THE plaintiff filed appeal but that too was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Baran by his judgmant dated 22 -1 -63. Consequently the plaintiff has come in second appeal to this Court.;