1. This judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid second appeal which has been filed by the appellants who were the plaintiff in the lower Court. The suit filed by the appellants 91-A/94 was decided in favour of the plaintiff but in first appeal filed by the respondent as Civil Appeal No.26-A/95, the judgment of the lower Court was reversed.

2. In the lower Court the appellant Devilal filed a suit for injunction to the effect that the house of the appellant was located in ward No.4 uparwali toli and the house of the respondent was located at some distance. In between the two houses there was a way going through Government open land and the said way used to be utilized by the plaintiff as well as the people in the Mohalla, but the respondent wanted to create obstruction in the aforesaid area who got a sale deed of the portion of the land in their favour, even though the Anjuman Tanjuman Islam Committee who had executed sale deed in their favour had no right to execute the sale deed. Since then the respondent wanted to obstruct the passage leading to the house of the appellant by causing obstruction in the light of easement sought with respect to the user of the passage. As such, the appellant filed the suit for injunction.

3. The suit for injunction filed was decreed in favour of the appellant by the lower Court but in the first appeal the judgment was reversed. The first appellate Court framed the following issues at the time of deciding the appeal and answered both of them against the appellant :-

¼v½ D;k oknxzLr Hkwfe ij ls oknh dks vius edku ds vkus tkus ds fy;s jkLrs dk lq[kkf/kdkj izkIr gS \

¼c½ D;k v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkyksP; fu.kZ; o t;i= vfHkys[k ij vkbZ gqbZ lk{; dks ns[krs gq, mfpr foospuk ij vk/kkfjr gS \

4. The trial Court by holding that no relief of easement was sought for by the appellant in his plaint and therefore, he was not entitled to the relief. It was also held that since there was an averment that there was user of the land even by the people for which there was no such averment in the plaint, the appellant was not entitled to the relief as claimed and therefore reversed the judgment. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment are as under : -

8- oknh dks vksj ls okn dsoy LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh lgk;rk ds fy;s is'k fd;k x;k gS] tcfd okn&i= ds vfHkopuksa eas jkLrs ds lq[kkf/kdkj ds ckcr~ Hkh rF;ksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] ysfdu rFkk dfFkr lq[kkf/kdkj dh dksbZ ?kks"k.kk ugha pkgh gSA oknh us fookfnr Hkwfe eas tks lq[kkf/kdkj jkLrs dk gksuk mYys[k fd;k gS ,slk jkLrs dk vf/kdkj dksbZ ?kksf"kr vf/kdkj ugha gS] vkSj u gh 'kkldh; vfHkys[k vFkok uxjikfydk vfHkys[k eas mDr Hkwfe eas ls jkLrk gksus ds laca/k eas gks dksbZ nLrkost vFkok bl vk'k; dh lk{; fd ftleas mDr Hkwfe eas jkLrk gksuk mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gks] gks is'k dh xbZ gSA tgk¡ oknh dk vf/kdkj iw.kZr% fookfnr Fkk] ml fLFkfr eas mls vius jkLrs ds vf/kdkj dh ?kks"k.kk vko';d :i ls pkgh tkuh Fkh] mlds vHkko eas LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tSlh lgk;rk iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA vfèkuLFk U;k;ky; us bl rF; dh vksj dkbZ /;ku ugha fn;k gSA

9- oknh Ø-1 nsohyky us okn Lo;a ds jkLrs ds vf/kdkj o vU; O;fDr;ksa ds mDr jkLrs eas vf/kdkj gksus tSls vfHkopu okn&i= eas fd;s gSaA bl rjg okn&i= ds vfHkopu ls mldk Lo:i izfrfuf/k okn ds Lo:i dk /kkjk 91 O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk ds v/khu lkoZtfud fgr ds okn ;k rks ,MoksdsV tujy }kjk gks nk;j fd;s tk ldrs gSa] ;k fQj mDr okn nk;j djus ds fy;s ;k 2 ls vf/kd O;fDr gksuk pkfg,A vkSj ml fLFkfr eas okn U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ls gh nk;j fd;k tk ldsxkA ;gk¡ ;g okn izkjEHk eas dsoy oknh nsohyky }kjk nk;j fd;k x;k] ml le; mDr izko/kku ds v/khu okj nk;j djus dh dksbZ vuqefr Hkh ugha yh xbZ] blds vykok O;ogkj izfØ;k lafgrk izko/kku vkns'k 1 fu;e 8 tk-nh-dk Hkh ikyu ugha fd;k x;k] ftlds vuqlkj izfrfuf/k Lo:i ds okn eas U;k;ky; ds vuqefr fy;k tkuk vko';d gSA lkFk gh ,slh vuqefr fn;s tkus ls iwoZ fgrc} O;fDr;ksa dks vkns'k 1 fu;e 8 ds mi [k.M 2 ds v/khu lwpuk fn;k tkuk Hkh vko';d gSA bl rjg mijksDr izko/kkuksa dk ikyu fd;s cxSj gks okn lapkfyr gqvk gS rF