The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the scope of public street under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the authority of the municipality to maintain public highways, which influenced the court's decision to uphold the decree for mandatory injunction.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 18.05.92, rendered by. the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Rajpura, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.l, and the judgement and decree dated 09.02.95, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which, it dismissed the appeal.

2. The plaintiff/respondent was the owner in possession of shop No. in Jawahar Market, Township Rajpura. A portion of the shop was under the tenancy of Goverdhan Dass, defendant No.l/appellant (now deceased) represented by his legal representatives. The husband of the plaintiff through her had been using the road towards southern side of the shop, in question, since the date of its purchase. There had been a door of the plaintiff, in the shop, since 1958, which opened towards the southern side, allowing the light and air to pass through the same. It was stated that a valuable right of easement had accrued to the plaintiff, as she was using the door situated towards the southern side of the shop, since long. It was further stated that defendant No.l, placed a wooden kiosk (khokha), shown by words ABCD near the door of the shop, in dispute, in connivance with defendants No.2 and 3. It was further stated that, in this way, the defendants tried to interfere in the easementary rights, aforesaid, of the plaintiff. The defendants, were many a time asked, not to interfere into the peaceful enjoyment of the easementary rights of the plaintiff, and remove the kiosk (khokha) but to no avail. On his final refusal to accede to her repeated requests, left with no other alternative, a suit for mandatory injunction, was filed.

3. Defendant No.l, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, he took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was stated that Devi Dayal, husband of the plaintiff, was the owner of the shop, in dispute, and he has died leaving him surviving her, four sons, and three daughters, and as such, she (plaintiff), was not the sole owner of the shop, in question. It was admitted that a portion of the shop, in dispute, was in possession of defendant No. 1, as a tenant. It was further stated that the title of the shop did not legally pass on to the plaintiff on the basis of collusive decree. It was further stated that the plaintiff or her husband had no concern with the site in dispute. It was further stated that the site was allotted to the defendant, by the Notified Area Committee, Rajpura, and it had been receiving the rent, in respect thereof, from him, prior to 1966. It was further stated that the Notified Area Committee, Rajpura, was later on amalgamated into Municipal Committee, Rajpura, which was also receiving the rent from him in respect of the site, in dispute, which was allotted to him. It was further stated that the possession of the defendant over the site in dispute, whereon the wooden kiosk (khokha) had been installed, was for more than 27 years and the question of having any easementary right by the plaintiff over the same did not at all arise. It was denied that any door towards the southern side of the shop existed at the spot.

4. Defendants No.2 and 3, also filed a separate written statement, stating therein that the plaintiff, had given the back portion of her shop to defendant No. 1, on rent. It was further stated that defendant No.l, got allotted open space measuring 30 x 8 vide resolution No.876, dated 04.03.67 and since then he installed a wooden kiosk (khoka), measuring 10 x 8 . It was further stated that the site is far away from the shop of the plaintiff and there existed 60 wide road towards the western side. It was further stated that the Municipal Committee, is competent to permit occupation of Public Land, under Section 173 of the Punjab Municipal Act. It was further stated that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed on 8-X-88. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. Respondent No.