JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1. This civil second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants No. 7, 8, 9, 12, 13/2, 13/3, 14/1, 14/2, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26 (for short “the appellants”) against the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar Headquarter, Sri Madhopur (for brevity “the learned appellate Court”) in Civil Regular Appeal No. 1/2011 whereby, while allowing the first appeal, the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Reengus, District Sikar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial Court”) dismissing the Civil Suit No. 7/2002 filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs (for brevity “the plaintiffs”) for declaration and permanent injunction, have been reversed and the suit has been decreed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit in representative capacity for declaration of easementary right and permanent injunction stating therein that they and the residents of village Dhani Sadhu Wali, Tan Dadiya Rampura, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, have right of way alongside boundary of various khasra numbers and through the land of Khasra Nos. 1958, 1987 & 1988 as described in para no. 2 of the plaint which was in use for hundreds of years. It was averred that it was the only way available to them to have access to their agricultural land and residential houses. Alleging that the defendants were trying to interfere with their right of way, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.

3. The defendants No. 15 & 16 in their joint written statement admitted the contents of the plaint. The defendants No. 17 & 18 in their joint written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint, submitted that the plaintiffs have alternative ways and no way exists through the land of Khasra No. 1958 under their khatedari on which they have raised construction of a pucca residential house. The defendants No. 7, 8, 9, 11/1 & 12 in their joint written statement denied the existence of the way as claimed in the plaint.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed twelve issues including relief. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 01.12.2010. The civil first appeal preferred there-against has been allowed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.05.2012 and the suit has been decreed.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the plaint is bereft of the necessary ingredients to constitute an easementary right by prescription as prescribed under Section 15 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882. He, referring to the examination-in-chief of S/Shri Jhabar Singh (PW-1) and Ramniwas (PW-2), would contend that they have stated therein that about 10 years prior to filing of the suit, the subject way was tried to be obstructed by the neighbourer khatedars upon which a deed was written on 01.01.1992 amongst the neighbour Khatedars also endorsed by some of the defendants.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that although, the suit was filed in the representative capacity and it has also been decreed by the learned appellate Court accordingly; but, no issue was framed with regard to right of the general public to use the way in question. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2012 be quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2010 passed by the learned trial Court be restored.

7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that since, the suit was permitted to be filed in representative capacity, the connotation “plaintiffs’ includes the general public and even otherwise also, the mere omission of word “general public” in the issues framed would not affect the validity of the decree impugne