The court emphasized the importance of establishing easement rights and the implications of procedural errors in appeals concerning previous rulings.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

Both these appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), have assailed the judgments and decrees dated 28.10.2022 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP in Civil Appeal No.1-D/XIII/2018 and Civil Appeal No.122- D/VI/2022, affirming the composite judgments and decrees dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No.4/2007. Hence, they are being taken up together.

2. The facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the land comprised in Khata No.2 min, Khatauni No.5, Khasra No. 159, measuring 0-00-18 hectares, situated at Mohal Lahar, Mauza Chahri, Tehsil and District Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) as per Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is 'Gair Mumkin Share- Aam Rasta' and the plaintiff has right of path for egress and ingress to his house and land comprised in Khata No.10 min, Khatauni No.19, Khasra No.169, measuring 0-22-40 hectares situated at Up Mohal Lahar, Mauza Chahri, Tehsil and District Kangra (H.P). The said Gair Mumkin Rasta comprised in the suit land, touches the land of the plaintiff, on one side and Chahri- Nagrota Bagwan link road on the other side, which is comprised in Khasa No.157. The plaintiff claimed to be using the passage since 1973 as a matter of right to his house and land, having acquired rights under the Easement Act both by easement of necessity and prescription as this was the only passage to his house and land. The plaintiff pleaded continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted use of the passage for over 30 years without any interference. The defendant was alleged to have no right to obstruct the passage by raising a wall or making a water channel that diverted water flow towards the plaintiff's property.

3. The plaintiff further challenged the correction order dated 12.10.2006 obtained by the defendant from the court of Settlement Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala in Misal No.377/2006, contending it was an ex-parte order obtained without notice or opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff, rendering it illegal, null and void. The plaintiff sought restoration of the entry in respect of the suit land as Share-Aam and cancellation of mutation No.396 based on the Settlement Collector's order. The suit also sought permanent prohibitory injunction against interference with the passage and mandatory injunction for restoration of the suit land to its original position by removing any constructions or water channels. The plaintiff asserted ownership of adjacent land (Khasra No.169) where he had constructed a house in 1973 and resided with his family for over 30 years.

4. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, taking advantage of her name in the ownership column, initiated correction proceedings before the Settlement Collector without impleading him, obtaining an order on 12.10.2006 without his knowledge. The defendant was allegedly attempting to close the passage and construct a water channel, raising a three-foot wall and lintel to divert water flow towards the plaintiff's property.

5. The defendant contested the suit, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel and jurisdiction. On merits, the defendant denied the suit land was 'Gair Mumkin Share-Aam Rasta', asserting it was 'Gair Mumkin Kuhal' owned and possessed by her since 1917-18, as per revenue records. The defendant claimed t