IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.45/2025 Date of Decision: 11th November, 2025.

Vijaya Gupta and Ors. .....Appellants Versus .

Kamal Kumar Gupta and Ors. …..Respondents.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

W hether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate.

F or the Respondents: N emo.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The appellants, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, HP in Civil Appeal No.33 of 2024, a ffirming the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge Court No.II, Mandi, District Mandi, HP, in Civil Suit No.30 of 2018.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned trial Court. The material facts necessary for the disposal of the case are that the land comprised in Khata Khatauni no. 162/255, Khasra Nos. 1124, 1125 Kita 2 measuring 33.05 Sq.mtrs is recorded in the ownership and possession of plaintiffs no. 1 & 2, and the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 161/251, Khasra No. 1112 measuring 12.26 Sq.mtrs is recorded in the ownership and

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

possession of plaintiff no. 3. There exist residential houses-cum-

shops and a store belonging to the plaintiffs, and adjPoining these shops is a house of the defendant No.3 on Khasra No. 1111 measuring 27.50 Sq.mtrs. An approach from the road to the aforesaid shops and houses of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants exists from the suit land, which has been used as a common path since time immemorial. The plaintiffs claimed to have acquired an easementary rtight by way of prescription and alleged that the defendants threatened to block this path by raising construction and had stacked construction material on it, thus accruing the cause of action. On these averments, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking a decree for declaration of their easementary rights over the common path passing through Khasra no. 1126, a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining gthe defendants from interfering with or blocking the path, and a mandatory injunction for demolition of any structure raised by the defendants during the pendency of the suit.

3. The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties, cause of action, and improper valuation for court fees and jurisdiction. On merits, they contended that the plaintiffs had recently acquired their property and had their own access, and that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had been declared the owner in possession upon payment of ₹1,000/- via a pre-

emption judgment and decree dated 22.11.1954 passed by the Senior Sub Judge Mandi, which was affirmed by the DPistrict Judge Mandi. They denied that the plaintiffs had been misusing the passage as an easementry right since time immemorial and prayed for the suit's dismissal. A replication was filed by the plaintiffs reaffirming the plaint's averments and denying those in the written statement.

4. The following issues werte framed by learned trial Court on 07.09.1994, which reads as under: -

1. Whether there exists a common path through Khasra No. 1126 measuring 15.25 Sq.mtrs from time immemorial and the plaintiffs have acquired easementary right by prescription towards the above path? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of injunction, as prayed? OPP

3. Whether the suit is bad for multifuriousness and joinder of causes of action? OPD

4. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

6. Relief.

5. The plaintiffs examined several witnesses, in