This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been placed for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 25.02.2015, passed by learned Additional District Judge VII, Rohtas, at Sasaram, in Title Appeal No. 73 of 1994, whereby he has modified the judgment and decree, dated 30.06.1994, passed by learned Munsif II, Rohtas, at Sasaram, in Title Suit No. 74 of 1989, the present second appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was defendant before the Trial Court and respondent before the appellate court below.

3. The respondent (plaintiff) had filed Title Suit No. 74 of 1989, seeking following reliefs:-

(i) Be it declared that the defendant did not have any right to interfere with or cause obstruction in respect of the path, described as CDEF in Schedule-B to the plaint;

(ii) If, during the pendency of the suit, any obstruction or construction is made over the said path, the decree be issued for removal of such encroachment;

(iii) Title of the plaintiff over plot no. 5055 be declared and demarcated by installation of pillars;

(iv) The defendant be restrained from destroying the crop sowed by the plaintiff and if they did so during the pendency of the suit, the defendant be ordered to pay in lieu of such destruction;

(v) By way of permanent injunction, the defendant be restrained from interfering with the suit property.

4. Briefly narrated, the case of the plaintiff in his plaint was that the plaintiff and the defendant are cousins, who lived separately with their separate business. The plaintiff had purchased 13 decimals of land in plot no. 5055, khesra no. 1449, on 17.03.1980, through registered deed, executed by one Gaffar Mian, whereafter he came into possession over the said suit property. Adjacent to north of the land purchased by the plaintiff, defendant had purchased 04 decimals of land out of the said plot no. 5055, plot nos. 5053 and 5272, khesra nos. 1449 and 1450, respectively. The defendant had also purchased said 04 decimals of land from Gaffar Mian on the same date, i.e. on 17.03.1980. It was the specific case of the plaintiff-respondent that the vendor had set aside 14 feet wide lane for passage on the eastern side, which the plaintiff had been using for reaching his plot. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant had constructed a house on adjacent north with its opening over the said land, described as CDEF in Schedule B to the plaint. After sometime, when the plaintiff started, living at some other place, the defendant issued threats to block the passage described as CDEF in Schedule B to the plaint and he uprooted pillars installed by the plaintiff to demarcate his land, on 13.05.1989, which gave rise to cause of action, leading to filing of the suit.

5. The defendant/respondent contested the suit on various technical grounds and asserted that the disputed property, which the plaintiff claimed to have purchased was not purchased by him; rather, it was purchased by the defendant/respondent in the name of the plaintiff. He asserted that the consideration amount was paid by the defendant and the plaintiff was merely a name lender. The defendant, accordingly, claimed his right, title and possession over the suit property. He asserted that the disputed land did not have any separate plot number; rather, it is mixed with other land of plot no. 5055. He also pleaded in his written statement that Gaffar Mian had not set aside any passage and that the plaintiff was wrongly claiming passage of width 14 feet, which has been entered as dhanhar in plot no. 5055. He claimed that plot no. 5053 was purchased by the defendant, which is the opening of the plaintiff’s house. He also claimed that the plaintiff never resided in the house situated on the northern side of plot no. 5053 nor there was any demarcating pillar, surrounding plot no. 5055. He denied the existence of any passage.

6. Learned Trial Court, based on the pl