JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

Both afore-titled appeals have been instituted by the defendants against a judgment of reversal. The suit for permanent injunction instituted by the plaintiffs (Municipal Committee Rupnagar and Nand Kishore Bhandari) was dismissed by the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ropar, vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.1983. However, separate appeals preferred by both plaintiffs against the said decision were allowed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ropar, vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.1988, thereby decreeing the suit.

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

3. The plaintiffs (Municipal Committee Rupnagar and one Nand Kishore Bhandari) instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (Raj Rani and 17 others) from blocking or interfering into the free use of the passage shown as IFEKJ and directing them to remove or demolish the structures raised on the passage shown as ROHIJKIM, depicted as red in the site plan.

4. The case set up was that there was a Nazul land, depicted as ABCDEFG in the site plan, where the old grain market was situated. The shop of plaintiff No.2 was depicted as yellow in the site plan, which was attached with the plaint. It was claimed that the passage towards South of the shop of the plaintiff was measuring 74 ft. x 46 ft. and towards the West, it was 31 ft. x 10 ft. It was claimed that this passage was leading to the shop of the plaintiff and was situated on Nazul land, and the plaintiff had been using the same from times immemorial for going to his shop, which was the only access to his shop.

4.1 It was claimed that two months prior to the institution of the suit, the defendants had encroached upon the said passage and had raised some temporary super structure and construction thereby closing the passage and narrowing it down. This act had caused damage to the plaintiff, as the passage, which had been blocked by the defendants (depicted as red in the site plan) was freely used by the public at large. Under the circumstances, it was claimed that the plaintiffs were entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from blocking the passage and for removing construction.

4.2 It was further claimed that the defendants had encroached upon the passage in front of their shops illegally and without any right and title. It was claimed that the application for sanction of site plan submitted by defendants No.1 to 6 had already been rejected by the Municipal Committee on 21.11.1978, but despite the refusal, the defendants raised construction and encroached upon the passage. Similar allegations were raised against defendants No.7 to 17.

4.3 It was claimed that the plaintiff(s) had acquired the right of way of prescription over the said passage and the right of necessity.

4.4 Certain details of litigation between the original vendor of the shops, namely, S. Umrao Singh and Municipal Committee, were also given. It was claimed that in the said suit, a compromise had been arrived at between the parties on 20.03.1911, whereby it was agreed that nobody would raise the constructions on Nazul land but the same could be used for placing material. It was claimed that the said compromise was binding upon the defendants, as they were successors of the owners of the said shop(s).

5. The suit was opposed by the defendants by way of separate written statements, wherein they claimed to be the owners of their respective shops and denied that any encroachment had been made.

6. Replications were filed denying the averments made in the written statements and reiterating those made in the plaint.

7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

“1. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form?OPD.

1A. Whether the contesting defendants are owners in possession of the disputed property as alleged? OPD.

2. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to su