The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a sanctioned lay-out plan under Section 313 and a declaration by the Commissioner under Section 316 for a private street to become a public street, as well as the limitations of Section 320 in relation to private streets.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. These Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) are filed against the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 24.5.2011 and the First Appellate Court dated 22.1.2013; by which the suits for injunction filed by the appellants/plaintiffs were dismissed. The claim in the suit was with respect to a cause of action of the appellants/plaintiffs that the smaller portion JKLM forming a part of gali DGHI admeasuring 60 sq. yards was a private gali of the appellants/plaintiffs and in which the respondents No. 1 and 2/defendants have no right including for opening of any doors or ventilators in the gali. For the sake of convenience reference is made to the facts of RSA No. 78/2013.

2. The subject suit was filed by the plaintiffs pleading that they and their predecessors-in-interest were owners of one bigha and one biswa of land (1058 sq. yards) comprised in Khasra No. 511 of village Shahpur Jat, New Delhi. It was pleaded that the original co-owners of this land had left a private gali shown as DGHI in the site plan Ex.PW1/1. The disputed portion JKLM is part of this private gali of 60 sq. yards and which area JKLM forms part of the larger area DGHI. It is pleaded that the respondents No. 1 and 2/defendants never used the gali/private street DGHI and their ingress and egress is from the southern portion of their house which adjoins the public street wherein the respondents No. 1 and 2/defendants have their electricity meters, water meters, etc. To the northern side of the house of the respondents No. 1 and 2/defendants is the subject private gali DGHI of the appellants/plaintiffs in which the respondents No. 1 and 2/defendants do not have any legal right whatsoever and therefore even no right to open any door or window or ventilator opening in the same, but, the respondents No. 1 and 2/defendants have opened ventilators on the property and are threatening to open a door on the ground floor of their property which will have opening in the private gali which is to the north of the premises owned by the respondents No. 1 and 2/defendants, and have ultimately opened a door opening on to the subject gali. Accordingly, injunction was prayed in the suit by the appellants/plaintiffs to restrain the respondents No. 1 and 2/defendants from in any manner using the private street of the plaintiffs, including the portion JKLM, whether by opening of ventilators or opening of door on the ground floor of the property of the defendants which was three feet above the street DGHI. The already opened door was prayed to be closed.

3. Respondents No. 1 and 2/defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the street was a public street and hence appellants/plaintiffs could not claim it to be a private street. Respondents No. 1 and 2/defendants claim that there were water lines, sewer lines, etc of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on the street DGHI and thus this street could not be a private street but was a public street. It was also the case of the respondents No. 1 and 2/defendants that there was completely unhindered ingress and egress on to this street by all persons and therefore this street DGHI could not be taken as a private street. It was also pleaded that even the MCD also considers this street as a public street because the municipal sweeper cleans this street. Accordingly, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

4. After the pleadings were complete, the trial court on 21.2.2005 framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the suit is barred in view of PO No. 3? OPD

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of PO No. 7? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction? OPP

5. Relief."

5. Issue No. 1 has been decided against the appellants/plaintiffs relying on the admissions of PW2 and PW4 that the street is cleaned by the municipal sweeper, that the street ha