JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

1. This is plaintiff's appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 02.04.1991 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Bathinda, allowing the appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1988 passed by the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Mansa, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred as per their original status.

3. Plaintiff-Des Raj instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants Nand Kishore and Tarsem Chand from closing the street Marked "EF" (for short the "property in dispute") in the site plan by constructing a wall. Parties to the lis are the descendants of one Godu Mal, the plaintiff-Des Raj being the son of Khilo Ram son of Godu Mal and defendants Nand Kishore and Tarsem Chand being the sons of Gurnam Mal son of Godu Mal. The case set up by the plaintiff was that, one factory was stated to be in the name of Godu Mal Khilo Ram in Mansa. It was claimed that on the intervention of the Panchayat, a partition had been effected between the sons of Godu Mal. Foundations were laid and streets were carved out and a site plan dated 28.08.1974 was prepared. The details, as per which different portions were allocated, were given in the plaint. It was averred that between all 4 co-sharers, streets measuring 12 feet each from East to West were carved out. One street was going from the center of the portion of Gurnam Mal, father of the defendants and Des Raj, Babu Ram etc. from North to South towards the road of the village and joining the same to the road of the village. Another street measuring 12 feet was carved out towards the West of the plots of the plaintiff, defendants and Babu Ram from North to South. The site plan was prepared after carving out these streets and the site plan had been signed by Gurnam Mal (father of the defendants) and the plaintiff. A photostat copy of the same was also annexed with the plaint.

4. It was further claimed that all parties had incurred equal expenditure and had got the foundations filled up and thereafter, each party had raised its own construction. It was alleged that the defendants were forcibly trying to construct a wall across the street between the portion of the two sides. It was mentioned that the place at which the defendants were trying to construct a wall was shown in 'green' in the site plan. They were asked not to do so but they refused as a result of which the suit was filed.

5. The suit was resisted by the defendants. In the written statement, certain preliminary objections were raised. It was claimed that the defendants had become owners of the property in dispute by way of adverse possession as they were owners in possession of the same for the last more than 12 years. It was stated that Mahesh Kumar had already raised construction at the spot and a tap was also installed. It was averred that Mahesh Kumar had constructed a wall at the spot which had been demolished with a view to construct a new wall but after demolition, he started raising construction and the plaintiff started raising a dispute. It was also averred that the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and that the plaint was vague. It was claimed that the suit property had been given by Gurnam Mal to his grandson Mahesh Kumar in the family partition. Preliminary objections of non-joinder of necessary parties and cause of action were also raised. On merits, a similar stand was taken. The contents of para No.1 of the plaint were admitted. It was, however, stated that after the site plan had been prepared, an oral settlement had been arrived at between the parties that certain streets would be included within the property and in terms of the same, the streets had been included by the parties in their properties. Mahesh Kumar had also constructed a wall in the area which came to his share and this fact ha