Ownership and easement rights must be established to obtain an injunction; without proof, claims are insufficient to warrant a legal remedy.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. AHLUWALIA, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against judgment and decree dated 30.04.2008 passed by First Additional District Judge, District Shivpuri in Regular Civil Appeal No. 9A/2008, as well as judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 9A/2007.

2. Appellant is the plaintiff who has lost his case from both the Courts below.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction on the allegation that his mother was the owner of House No. 108/2 situated in Shivpuri, and after her death, plaintiff has become the owner and is making payment of property tax. A case for mutation of name of plaintiff, after the death of his mother, is pending with the defendant for the last several years. Smt. Mishribai, mother of plaintiff, had executed a Will in favour of plaintiff, and on the basis of said Will also, plaintiff is the sole owner and in possession of property in dispute. On the northern side of House No. 108/2, there is a road which merges with Agra-Mumbai National Highway. Mother of plaintiff had given an application for construction of 12 shops towards the northern side of House No. 108/2 along with a proposed map, and by order dated 14.04.1980, building permission was granted. The building permission got renewed from time to time. On the northern side of the house, 7 shops have already been constructed, and construction of remaining 5 shops up to lantern level has already been completed, but plaintiff is not in a position to complete the construction of remaining 5 shops because, just adjoining to the shops of plaintiff, temporary stalls of certain persons have been kept. Plaintiff had made application to defendant on multiple occasions for removal of stalls, but the same was not done, and accordingly, plaintiff is unable to raise construction of his remaining 5 shops. The land, which is on the northern side of building of House No. 108/2, belongs to State of M.P., Public Works Department. Land was required for construction of road, and accordingly, Executive Engineer, P.W.D., by his letter dated 18.07.1955, had written to defendant that permission to construct 20 ft. wide road can be granted on the ground that, adjoining to the road, no construction, either temporary or permanent, would be raised. Only after aforesaid condition was accepted by defendant, 5440 sq. ft. of land was allotted to defendant by order dated 23.01.1958, and accordingly, road was constructed, which merges with Agra-Mumbai National Highway. It was further pleaded that land, which is adjoining to the land in question, was a part of Kothi No. 14, and defendant has no right or title to lease out said land, which belongs to the State Government. P.W.D. and Collector, Shivpuri had also informed the defendant on multiple occasions to remove the stalls, but since employees of defendant are hand in glove with owners of stalls, they are not removing the stalls. Even writ petition filed by owners of stalls had also been dismissed by the High Court, but still defendant is not removing their encroachment. It was further pleaded that defendant wants to construct shops on the same land on which stalls have been kept, and wants to lease it out. Because of stalls, road has become narrow and is creating public nuisance. Even P.W.D. had also directed defendant to remove the stalls, and even the Court of S.D.M. had also held that it amounts to public nuisance, but still defendant is not interested in removing the stalls. It was further pleaded that defendant is also going to construct Pacca shops on the land situated towards northern side of the place where 5 shops are to be constructed by plaintiff. If defendant is allowed to construct Pacca shops, then approach road to the southern side of shops already constructed by plaintiff would be blocked, and plaintiff would not be in a position to