To claim a right of easement by prescription, peaceful and uninterrupted enjoyment of the alleged easement for twenty years must be established, and the period must end within two years before the institution of the suit.

This appeal, preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09-05-1988, passed in Original Suit No. 08 of 1986, by the learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, whereby said suit is decreed with costs for perpetual injunction against the de fendants (appellants) restraining them from creating any obstruction over land in dispute against the right of plaintiffs (respondents) to use it as a pathway. The trial court has further decreed the suit for Rs. 3,000/- as damages.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the/entire record.

3. As per the plaint case, the plain tiffs are residents of village Moliya, Patti Upli Ramoli, District Tehri Garhwal. prom the period of their ancestors it is alleged that they were using the plot No. 1356 situated in Semalhari Tok, owned by the defendants No. 1 and 2 as pathway for reaching to the plots owned by them (plaintiffs ). It is further pleaded by the plaintiffs that they were using said land in that manner for over fifty years, openly and as of right. Claiming the easementary right, it is al leged by the plaintiffs that on 21-02-1983, they were obstructed by the de fendants No. 2 in their user of the above plot as pathway, and thereafter, raised a wall obstructing the pathway. The wall was removed on 06-03-1983 but path way was again closed by the defendants No. 1 and 2. On this, the proceedings under Section 147 of the Code of Crimi nal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr. P. C.) were initiated against defend ants No. 1 and 2, before the Sub Divi sional Magistrate, Tehri, in which an order was passed in favour of the plain tiffs directing defendants No. 1 and 2 to remove the obstruction, till the rights are determined from a competent court. It is further pleaded in the plaint that to save themselves from the order of the Magistrate defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in stituted a suit No. 54 of 1983 against the plaintiffs / respondents seeking per manent injunction, but said suit was later on withdrawn by the defendants. By amending the plaint, it is further pleaded that again the defendants No. 1 and 2 raised the wall and there was another round of litigation before the criminal court. With these allegations, suit No. 08 of 1986 was filed by the plaintiffs on 06-02-1986 alleging that the cause of action has arisen to them on 22- 02-1983, when wall was raised by defendants No. 1 and 2 over their plot No. 1356 preventing thereby plaintiffs to use it as passage to their fields.

4. Defendants No. 1 and 2 con tested the suit and filed the written state ment denying the easementary rights claimed by the plaintiffs. It is pleaded in the written statement that the plain tiffs have a separate

way to reach to their plots. It is further pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiffs for cibly want to use the defendants plot No. 1356, as a pathway to reach their fields. As to the proceedings under Sec tion 147 Cr. P. C. , the allegations con tained in the plaint are admitted by the answering defendants.

5. Learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed following issues :

1. Whether, the plaintiffs have a right of way through plot No. 1356, as claimed in the plaint ?

2. Is the suit barred by time as al leged in para 17 of the written statement ?

3. Whether, the defendants are estopped from denying plaintiffs right of way and pas sage, as alleged in para 5 of the amended plaint ?

4. Whether, the plaintiffs have been deprived of six crops on account of the defendants action and have they suffered loss of Rs. 6,000/-, as alleged ?

5. To what relief, if any, the plain tiffs are entitled?

6. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court found that the plaintiffs have been successful in proving easementary right acquired by prescription over plot No. 1356 of the defendants No. 1 and 2. It further found that neither the plaintiffs suit is barred by time nor the defendants are estopped fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document