A person who has a house abutting on a public road or lane is entitled to access to the road or lane from the house, and no person or authority can destroy that right.

JUDGMENT :- This appeal by defendant No. 2 arises in the following circumstances. The plaintiff and one Mst. Bhurki purchased the southern half portion of premises No. D-3/36 situate in Mohalla Shivala, Bhelpur Ward Varanasi on 26th of November, 1964. After some time the plaintiff and Smt. Bhurki partitioned the premises and thus the half northern portion thereof came to then share of the plaintiff and the southern portion fell to the share of Smt. Bhurki. A partition wall was raised between the two portions. The main door of the house for egress and ingress purposes abutted the settlement plot No. 1709 which is a public street. The plaintiff alleged that she and Smt. Bhurki and their predecessor in title had always enjoyed the right of passage to and from the said premises over the public street as of right without any hindrance and obstruction from anybody. Defendant No. 1 Nagar Mahapalika of the City of Varanasi, however, wrongly and illegally granted a lease of a portion, of the said plot No. 1709 to defendant No. 2 on 9th November, 1964. This fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only when defendant No. 2 started encroaching upon the portion of said plot No. 1709 in such a way that the plaintiff's fight for egress and ingress to her house was threatened to be completely affected. The plaintiff raised an objection to the same but to no avail. She approached the Nagar Mahapalika and the police authorities. The Nagar Mahapalika issued notice to defendant No. 5 for demolition of the wall which defendant No. 2 had constructed treating the same as unauthorised. The said wall Virtually and practically blocked the only passage for egress and ingress to the plaintiff's house. Defendant No. 2 thereupon filed the suit against the Nagar Mahapalika for injunction restraining the Nagar Mahapalika from demolishing the wall and other constructions in question. The plaintiff filed an application in that suit for being impleaded as a party, but that application was opposed and the court disallowed it with the remark that she might agitate her right in a separate suit hence the plaintiff filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal against the Nagar Mahapalika and defendant No. 2 for an injunction ordering defendant No. 2 to remove all constructions which she had raised and which would be obstructing the passage for egress and ingress to the plaintiff's house and to restrain the defendant from doing any act over said plot No. 1709 which might prejudicially affect the plaintiff in her enjoyment of free passage over said plot No. 1709.

2. The suit was resisted by defendant No. 2. She alleged that the land over which the constructions in question had been made formed part of the house which is adjacent to the house of the plaintiff. She further alleged that she had obtained a lease of the land in dispute from the Nagar Mahapalika and has had every right to make constructions on the same. She denied that the plaintiff had any right of passage over any portion of the land in question and that no door of house No. B-3/36 ever opened on that land. It was further alleged that even if there was any partition between the plaintiff and Smt. Bhurki, the plaintiff should have adjusted the equities and the rights of passage inter se and she could not create any fresh rights in her favour with regard to the passage on the land in dispute. The Nagar Mahapalika in its written statement pleaded that it was entitled to lease-out the portion of the public land vesting in it and the plaintiff had no right to complain against the same. Further, it was alleged that if the plaintiff had any right of passage over the portion leased out to defendant No. 2, the plaintiff was free to enjoy it and that the Nagar Mahapalika would not put any hindrance in the way of the plaintiff. The Nagar Mahapalika also contended that the constructions made by defendant No. 2 were unauthorised but on account of a temporary injunction granted by the court, the cons