The court emphasized the importance of upholding the terms of the compromise decree and preventing any party from creating obstructions in the common pathway.

1. Both the appeals filed under Section 100 of the CPC being RSA No. 56 of 2012 [Sri Debdas Roy Chowdhury vs Sri Hare Krishna Roy Chowdhury & Another] and RSA No. 60 of 2012 [Sri Gangesh Roy Chowdhury vs Sri Hare Krishna Roy Chowdhury & Another] are clustered for disposal by a common judgment as these appeals arise from the common judgment of affirmation dated 31.08.2012 delivered in T.A. NO. 60 of 2011 and T.A. No. 68 of 2011. For convenience, it may be noted that the first appeal being T.A. 60 of 2011 was preferred by the appellant in RSA 56 of 2012 who was the defendant No.1 in T.S. No. 16 of 2002 and the first appeal being T.A. No. 68 of 1986 was preferred by the appellant in RSA 60 of 2012 who was the defendant No.2 in T.S. 16 of 2002.

2. The respondent No.1 in both the appeals instituted the suit being T.S. No. 16 of 2002 for declaration and mandatory and perpetual injunction against the appellant herein. The suit was decreed by the court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Court No.1, hereinafter referred to as the trial court, in pursuance to the judgment dated 10.11.2011 in the following terms :

“In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed on contest with cost with a declaration that the Plot no. 4/A and 4/B, i.e. schedule ‘E’ and ‘F’ of the plaint are the Ejmali (common) pathway of the Plaintiff and Defendants as per Solenama and the compromise decree along with map in Case No. T.S. 68/86 and defendants have no right to create any obstruction in the said plot no. 4/A and 4/B of the map, i.e, in the ejmali pathway. Defendant No. 1 and 2 is hereby directed to remove obstruction which is created illegally in the Ejmali pathway under Schedule – E, i.e, plot No. 4/B of the map by erecting iron-net wooden framed fencing and bamboo fencing within one month from the date of the decree otherwise plaintiff will execute the decree as per the procedure established by law.”

[Emphasis added]

3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 10.11.2011, the appellants herein filed those appeals being T.A. No. 60 of 2011 and T.A. No. 68 of 2011 in the Court of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. In the course of time, those appeals were transferred to the court of the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.5. Both the appeals were decided on the point whether the trial court was justified in granting mandatory injunction for removal of obstruction from the path way as described in the schedule appended to the plaint. The first appellate court on observing that in terms of the compromise deed, the path way as mentioned in Schedule-E and also in Schedule-F are meant for common use of the parties and anyone of the parties has his independent right of free use of the same. Thus, every one of them is debarred from making any obstruction or hindrance to the free use of pathway to the other. In their written statements, the defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit have admitted that they have set up gate in the said path way under Schedule E for safety and security reason. So existence of such gates is admitted by the parties. Thus, the onus shifts upon them to show that as per terms of the said compromise decree they were entitled to set up such gates. But they, according to the first appellate court, have failed to discharge that onus. Hence the first appellate court dismissed the appeals by affirming the judgment of the trial court by the judgment dated 31.08.2012 which has been challenged in these appeals.

4. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law were formulated in the appeals by the order dated 18.12.2012 :

“Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below suffers from perversity?”

Liberty was however reserved in favour of the appellants to propose any other substantial question of law at the time of hearing.

5. For purpose of appreciating the substantial question of law, the facts those are relevant to these appeals may briefly be noted at the outset. Th