Every citizen has a right to use a public way for ingress and egress, and this right cannot be defeated by a private citizen's encroachment.

1. - This civil second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff who won his suit in respect of a right of way in the trial court but lost it in the first appellate court of Civil Judge, Merta Headquarters Nagaur.

2. The respondents did not put appearance despite service of notice on them. As such the appeal was heard in their absence.

3. Plaintiff Poosa Ram instituted a suit against the defendants Ghasiram and Sheodan in the court of Munsif, Deedwana in respect of a right of way The case set up by him is that the enclosure bearing Khasra No.486 situated in village Dhingsari is of his ownership and possession. 1 here runs a public way adjacent to his Bara which has been duly recorded to be a public way in the revenue records. This public way bears Khasra No. 483. The plaintiff has been regularly using this public way to go his aforesaid enclosure. The defendants closed this public way and included it in their enclosure. The public way thus stood completely blocked. The relief claimed was that the encroachment made by the defendants in the public way bearing Khasra No. 483 be removed. The suit was contested by the defendants through a joint and common written statement. According to them, the plaintiff had never used the way in dispute as pleaded by him. However, no denial was made that Khasra No. 438 is not a public way. The learned Munsif raised the necessary issues and after trial, decreed the plaintiff's suit in terms prayed for by him. The defendants wait in appeal which was heard by the learned Civil Judge. The learned Civil Judge allowed the defendants' appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Muasif and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

4. Respondent Sheodan passed away during the pendency of appeal in this Court. No efforts were made to bring his legal representatives on record by the plaintiff. As such the appeal shall stand abetted as against him.

5. It was vehemently contended by the plaintiffs learned Counsel Mr. Shreemali that the whole approach of the learned Civil Judge while deciding the appeal was erroneous. There is the evidence of Patwari Ram Kishan (PW 4) and the revenue record Ex. PW 4/1 to establish that Khasra No. 483 is a public way. It was further argued that a bare look into Ex. PW 4/1 shows that the plaintiff's enclosure is. situate contiguous to this public way bearing Khasra No. 486. The learned Civil Judge failed to take this aspect into consideration and abruptly allowed the appeal.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contention placed before me. Ex PW 4/1 is a public document. This is a map of the Abadi of village Dhingsari as recorded in the revenue records. PW 4 Ram Kishan Patwari very clearly deposed that Khasra NO. 483 is a public way, as recorded in Ex. PW 4/1. He further deposed that the way to have an access to the plaintiff's enclosure bearing Khasra No. 486 is only this public way and no other way is available to him la view of this evidence, the learned Munsif was perfectly justified in concluding that the plaintiff has a right of way through this public way bearing Khasra No. 483 to go to his enclosure bearing Khasra No. 486.

7. Every citizen has a right to use the public way for ingress and egress. This right cannot be defeated by a private citizen by making encroachment upon the public way.

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Merta Head quarters Nagaur dated February 17, 1973 are set aside. The judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, Deedwana dated May 20, 1970 are restored. No orders as to costs of this appeal.Appeal allowed.

*******