VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiff -appellant stands directed against the impugned judgment and decree of reversal dated 20.7.1989, and 2.8.1989, respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 61 of 1979 by Shri Anil Kumar Sinha, 3rd Additional District Judge, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 31.3.1978, passed in Title Suit No. 164 of 1976, by 1st Munsif, Dhanbad was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
(2.) THE plaintiff -appellant has filed the said title suit for a declaration that the suit land described in Schedule B of the plaint is the part of Plot No. 369/511 which exclusively belongs to the plaintiff - appellant and the defendant -respondent has no right to demolish any portion of the building situate thereon and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant -respondent from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff -appellant over the structure situate thereon. The land in dispute in this case is 1 feet x 90 feet within plot No. 369/511. The case of the plaintiff -appellant in brief is that she is the owner and in possession of Schedule A land of the plaint i.e. plot No. 369 appertaining to khata No. 24 having an area of 16 decimals i. e. 10 kathas more or less and plot No. 369/511 measuring an area of 7.3 decimals which she has acquired by registered deed of sale dated 19.6.1947, and she has her cinema house known as Desh Bandhu Cinema over a portion of plot No. 369 and portion of plot No. 369/511 and the same is being used by her for her personal occupation. There is a road which is in front of the said cinema house and the said road is known as Jharia Bhaga road which stands recorded in the name of District Board, Manbhum in the last Survey Records of Right and right, title and interest of District Board, Manbhum stands vested in the District Board, Dhanbad which also vested in Zila Parishad i.e. the defendant -respondent. The land in front of said cinema house is fully occupied by the metal road including footpath and no area of the said road has been left out between the said cinema house and the said road except a portion measuring an area of 1 feet x 90 feet which forms part and parcel of plot No. 369/511 exclusively belonging to the plaintiff and she has left out that portion for egress and ingress of persons visiting the said cinema house and/or shops belonging to her which has since been on rent to different persons. It is alleged that the defendant - respondent on the allegation that certain land belongs to it started demolishing the pucca house and structures and the plaintiff -appellant has not encroached upon any portion of the land of the defendant -respondent and the suit land being the portion of plot No. 369/511 belongs to her and overseer of the defend ant -respondent came to her on 30.11.1976 and threatened her that the defendant -respondent would take action to demolish her structure on the allegation that the portion of the said structure is on 1 feet x 90 feet land which is part and parcel of the road aforesaid and is not the part of plot No. 369 and she apprehends that the defendant -respondent will take action for their illegal objects of demolishing the front portion of her structure measuring 1 feet x 90 feet of plot No. 369/511 on the allegation that the same forms part and parcel of the road aforesaid.
(3.) THE case of the defendant -respondent inter alia, is that plot Nos. 267 and 369/511 belong to the defendant -respondent and the plaintiff -appellant has no right, title and interest whatsoever in plot No. 369/511 as well as on plot No. 267 and the plaintiff -appellant has encroached upon plot No. 267 which is a public road and it is a very busy road and she cannot be allowed to encroach upon the public land causing obstruction and interference in the vehicular traffic as also to the petitioners and it is the duty of the defendant -respondent to see that no encroachment is made on the public road and it is well within its power to demolish and/or remove the obstruction over the public land.;