The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a clear and consistent pleading of easement rights and the need for a declaration of such rights in a suit for injunction. The court emphasized the importance of establishing the right of easement by way of prescription and the need for consistent and non-contradictory pleadings to claim such rights.

Kuldip Singh, Judge. The judgment and decree of affirmation passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, on 11.01.2001 in Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1997 approving judgment, decree dated 03.03.1997 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, in Civil Suit No. 94 of 1990 has been assailed by appellants/plaintiffs in the second appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants all sons of Dhan Dev filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against Dev their uncle and predecessor-in-interest of respondents. The respondents 3 to 6 were also impleaded as defendants. After the death of Dev, Smt. Jageshwaru his widow and Smt. Kaushalya daughter were also impleaded as parties. Smt. Jageshwaru has also died. The appellants and surviving respondents are cousins.

3. It has been alleged that land measuring 534.72 square metres bearing Kh. Nos. 719, 720, mauza Tarna was owned by State of Himachal Pradesh vide jamabandi 1984-85. Dhan Dev predecessor-in-interest of appellants was shown as ‘kabiz Nazayaz’. The Settlement Officer, Dharamsala, conferred proprietary rights on Dhan Dev of land comprised in Kh. Nos. 719, 720. Dev predecessor-in-interest of respondents filed an appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer before Divisional Commissioner and then to Financial Commissioner, who granted land comprised in Kh. No. 719 to Dhan Dev and land comprised in Kh. No. 720 to Dhan Dev and Dev in equal shares.

4. It has been alleged that Dev agreed that he would not create hindrance in the peaceful enjoyment of path passing through Kh. No. 720 leading to the house of appellants situate on Kh. No. 702. The Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, while attestation of mutation in pursuance of the order of the Financial Commissioner ignored the spirit and ratio of the order and conferred proprietary rights qua Kh. No. 720 upon Dev , path in question was also shown towards wrong direction vide order dated 08.04.1988 passed in mutation No. 705 which is also null and void.

5. The further case of the appellants is that Dhan Dev constructed a house in the year 1965 on the land comprised in Kh. No. 702. He was using the path which was being used later on by appellants without any obstruction. They have acquired right of easement by way of prescription on the path through Kh. No. 720. The appellants, however, did not admit Dev to be the owner in possession of the land comprised in Kh. No. 720.

6. It has been alleged that respondents and their predecessor-in-interest on 28.06.1990 started raising construction of wall over the land comprised in Kh. No. 720. The matter was reported to the police, the respondents gave in writing to the police that they would not obstruct the path nor they would raise any wall on any portion of the land comprised in Kh. No. 720. However, the respondents again started raising construction on 08.07.1990 which has been raised up to the height of 4/5 feet and are trying to block the path in question. They have also thrown debris on the land comprised in Kh. No.719/2. In these circumstances, the suit was filed for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction.

7. The respondents have contested the suit by filing written statement and took preliminary objections of maintainability, valuation and jurisdiction. It has been alleged that the land comprised in Kh. Nos. 719 and 720 are owned and possessed by respondents and the revenue entries showing contrary are wrong. The existence of any path over the suit land has been denied. The respondents are in possession of the suit land for the last more than 42 years. They have acquired ownership of land comprised in Kh. No. 719 by way of adverse possession.

8. It has been pleaded that Dev predecessor-in-interest of respondents had filed a suit for declaration against appellants which was pending. The suit land was in exclusive possession of respondents, appellants have no easementary right of path over Kh. No. 720. It has been denied that appellants have any right