1. Order dated 16-1-2012, passed by III Additional District Judge, Khandwa, passed in MCA No. 19/11 is being questioned vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby, an order dated 15-11-2011 by trial Court injuncting the respondent-defendant for causing interference in the suit property has been reversed.

2. The suit by the petitioner is for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of passage over Khasra No. 571 area 0.04 hectares used by the petitioner and his family members to reach land bearing Khasra No. 569/1, 569/2, 563/3, 564/4, 568, which as per plaint allegation belongs to the petitioner and his family members. An easementary right thereon having been claimed by the respondent/defendant leading to an order dated 17.8.2011 under section 131 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Code of 1959’) passed by Additional Tehsildar, Khandwa, creating right of passage thereover in favour of defendant. Along with suit petitioner filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1980.

3. Trial Court on a finding that a passage in question being not a common passage and that the roads for ingress and egress of defendant exists, injuncted the defendant from causing any interference over the suit premises. Trial Court observed :-

^^06- izdj.k esa oknh dh vksj ls ‘kkldh; uD’kk] Lo;a dk foØ; i=] [kljk ikaplkyk] Hkh izLrqr fd, gaSA oknxzLr laifRr ds vf/kdkj vfHkys[kksa [kljk Ø- 571 ls dksbZ vkus tkus dk jkLrk jgk gks bl rF; dk mYys[k oknh fnukad 31-3-1997 dks iathc) foØ; i= }kjk laifRr Ø; dh xbZ FkhA ijUrq foØ; i= esa Hkh laifRr esa ls fdlh ds tkus dk jkLrk gks ,slk dksbZ rF; mYysf[kr ugha fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k esa izfroknh us ,slk dksbZ nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;k gS tks izFken`”V~;k laifRr ij mlds vkus tkus ds vf/kdkjksa ckcn fdlh rjg ds gd dks nf’kZr djrk gksA

7- izdj.k esa oknh dh vksj ls rglhynkj }kjk fd;k x;k LFky fujh{k.k vkSj LFky iapukesa ,oa iapukeksa dh lR;izfr izLrqr dh gSA ftlesa LFky fujh{k.k dj jftLVªh esa ntZ jkLrs dks can dj 7&8 o”kksZa ls iz’uk/khu jkLrs ds mi;ksx ds ckcn mYys[k djrs gq, mlh vuqlkj iapukek cukdj varfje jkLrk [kqyokus dk vkns’k fnukad 25-8-2011 dks fd;k x;k gSA bl ckcn dksbZ nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd jftLVªh esa nf’kZr jkLrs dks can dj u, jkLrs ds mi;ksx ds fy, oknh o izfroknh lger gq, gksA mHk; i{kksa ds vfHkopuksa ls ;g Li”V gS fd U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g fopkj.kh; iz’u gS fd D;k izfroknh dks oknh ds [ksr esa ls vkus tkus ckcn dksbZ jkLrk izkIr gqvk Fkk ,oa bl fopkj.kh; iz’u dk fujkdj.k lk{; }kjk fd;k tkuk gS \ ,sls esa izFke n`”V~;k ekeyk izdV djus esa oknh lQy jgk gSA**

4. In an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code the Appellate Court intercepted the trial Court’s order on two counts, firstly, that a suit arising of a proceeding under section 131 of the Code of 1959 is not maintainable and secondly there being an undertaking by the petitioner plaintiff recorded in the Panchnama to give the right of way to the respondent defendant, reverse the trial Court order.

5. Regarding first assumption that the suit is non maintainable there is no cavil even amongst the parties that in view of decision in Ramkanya Bai and another vs. Jagdish and others. 2011 RN 361 = 2011 (4) MPLJ 298, the suit in question is maintainable. It is held therein that :-

“The Code nowhere bars the jurisdiction of civil Courts to decide upon easementary rights relating to agricultural or other lands. The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code neither creates nor recognizes any new category of private easementary rights by way of right of way or right to take water, which is not covered by the provisions of the Easements Act or which is not required to fulfil the requirements prescribed by the Easements Act. An easement cannot be acquired otherwise than in the manner provided in the Easements Act. Section 131 of the Code does not provide for or recognize a new type of easement which is not contemplated or recognized in Easemen