The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for injunction can be maintainable without seeking a declaration of easementary rights and is not necessarily barred by Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

Kuldip Singh, J.

This appeal has been directed against judgment, decree dated 8.9.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 22/2000, affirming judgment, decree dated 17.1`2.1999 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Lahul & Spiti exercising powers of Sub Judge Ist class, Kullu.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Tirath Ram Respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against Tule Ram predecessor-in-interest of Appellants and five others. The further case of Respondent No. 1 is that he is owner in possession of land measuring 1-9-0 bighas comprised in khasra No. 254, khata whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes No. 1111 min khatauni No. 563 min, situated in Phatti Hallan, Kothi Nagar, Tehsil and Distt Kullu vide jamabandi 1989-90. The predecessor-in-interest of Appellants and Respondents No. 2 to 6 were owners in possession of land measuring 0-7-0 bigha comprised in khasra No. 251 and land measuring 0-16-0 bigha comprised in khasra No. 375 Khata/khatauni No. 496/953 min, situated in Phatti Hallan, Kothi Nagar, Tehsil and Distt Kullu vide jamabandi 1989-1990. In between the aforesaid two khasra numbers there is a public path over land comprised in khasra No. 370 measuring 1-6-0 bigha. The Respondent No. 1, other land owners and right holders have been using the disputed path peacefully, openly and continuously without any interruption for the last more then 100 years.

3. The predecessor-in-interest of Appellants, Respondents No. 2 to 6 have no right to obstruct the said public path but they are trying to obstruct the path by encroaching a portion of aforesaid path. They were asked several times not to obstruct the path but to no avail. In these circumstances, the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed with a prayer that Appellants and Respondents No. 2 to 6 may be restrained from encroaching upon any portion of path situate on khasra No. 370 or raising construction thereon in any manner. A prayer has also been made that Appellants and Respondents No. 2 to 6 may be restrained from diverting the aforesaid path through the eastern boundary of land comprised in khasra No. 254 and they may also be restrained from interfering in the ownership and possession over that land.

4. The suit was contested by predecessor of Appellants and Respondents No. 2 to 6, they have filed common written statement. In the written statement, preliminary objections of limitation, estoppel, necessary parties namely State of Himachal Pradesh and Gram Panchayat, Hallan-1 (for short Gram Panchayat) were taken. On merits, it was denied that in between khasra Nos. 251,375 there is any path over khasra No. 370. The entries showing path over khasra No. 370 are wrong. The predecessor-in-interest of Appellants and Respondents No. 2 to 6 took the plea that they are owners in possession of land comprised in khasra No. 370. The Respondent No. 1 has no right, title or interest over khasra No. 370. The user of path over land comprised in khasra No. 370 by Respondent No. 1, land owners and right holders was also denied.

5. It has been pleaded that about 45 years ago, the forefathers of Appellants and Respondents No. 2 to 6 had purchased land comprised in khasra Nos. 251, 375 and since then the land comprised in khasra No. 370 is situated in between khasra Nos. 251 and 375. The forefathers of Appellants and Respondents No. 2 to 6 with the consent of Gram Panchayat in January, 1955 provided alternative path through the left side of the boundaries of khasra Nos. 251 and 375 and since then no path is existing over khasra No. 370. The plea of adverse possession was also taken over khasra No. 370. It has been submitted that Gram Panchyat, was earlier owner of khasra No. 370 and the Gram Panchayat had passed resolution No. 23 dated 25.7.1971 and khasra No. 370 was given in exchange in favour of Bala Ram predecessor of Appellants in lieu of the portion of land contained in kha