DARSHAN SINGH, J.

The present regular second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2015, passed by the learned District Judge, Kaithal vide which the regular first appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal has been dismissed.

2. As per the case of the plaintiffs-respondents, they are owner in possession of the house shown in green colour in the site plan attached with the plaint situated within the abadi deh of village Garhi Padla. There is a street, which leads from main street to their house. The appellant-defendant is constructing the house shown in yellow colour in the site plan on the northern side of the said street. He had constructed a projection to the newly constructed house in the street shown in the red colour in the site plan, which is causing inconvenience to them as well as others for egress and ingress. The loaded vehicles such as tractor trolley etc. cannot pass. Hence, the suit.

3. The appellant-defendant contested the suit on the grounds inter alia that the street in dispute was divided into two parts of 5 feet, each, which was used by him as well as the plaintiffs as a result of the compromise arrived at between the parties. It was also settled that dividing wall will be demolished and street in dispute shall be used by them. It is further pleaded that street in dispute was built up by the Gram Panchayat. The ground floor of his house is already complete and there is no encroachment made by him in the street in question. He is constructing his house in the northern side. On the southern side also, there is construction of his house. He is constructing the house on the land purchased by him from Gopi Ram and Ram Sarup. He has already constructed the projections on the roof of the house and the height of the same is near about 16 feet. Since the construction is already complete, so no injunction can be granted. With these pleas the appellant defendant pleaded for dismissal of the suit.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trail court vide order dated 27.01.2011 :

1. Whether the construction/projection of the defendant towards the street amounts to encroachment on the street? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the construction/projection towards the street? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form under the provisions of law? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Relief.

5. The learned trial court returned the findings on all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and ultimately the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 03.11.2012.

6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendant preferred the appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Kaithal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.08.2015. Hence, this regular second appeal.

7. I have heard Mr. Anuj Balian, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and have carefully gone through the paper book.

8. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that even the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents was not maintainable as they had not pleaded and proved any actual or substantial damage to them. They have not adduced any evidence to show as to what hindrance has been caused by the appellant in the street. He further contended that no other inhabitant of the locality has raised any grouse that any obstruction has been caused by the appellant in the street. He further contended that it is alleged that the street was made pucca by the Gram Panchayat but the Gram Panchayat had not been made a party to the suit. He further contended that the plaintiffs-respondents cannot claim the easementary rights. Thus, he pleaded that the