An owner of land adjacent to a public street has an inherent legal right to access the street at any point where their land touches it, irrespective of custom or the existence of alternative access routes, provided it does not cause a serious obstruction to the public.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division-II, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove/demolish the wall/obstruction constructed by them in front portion of the main gate in public street starting from main Rehan Chattar to the house of the plaintiff and other houses situated in Abadi Laal Lakeer mentioned in the head note of the plaint and shown A, B, C and D in red in the site plan annexed to the plaint. A Permanent Prohibitory Injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s ownership and possession of the suit land was also sought. It was asserted that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the house situated in Abadi Laal Lakeer. His house is connected to Rehan Chattar through a public street that has existed since the time of his forefathers. A Gurudwara has also been constructed near the public street. The plaintiff has an approach to his house through the gate marked “X”. The plaintiff has a right to approach the public street from his house. The defendants constructed a wall/obstruction in front of the main gate of the plaintiff’s house despite requests. The plaintiff requested the defendants to allow him to approach the road, but in vain. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, locus standi and cause of action, the plaintiff being estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit, the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, and the plaintiff having not come to the Court with clean hands. The contents of the plaint were denied on the merits. It was asserted that the plaintiff has his Abadi and residential house in the basti of Suniaras. The plaintiff wants to maintain a gate towards Galli, which is meant for the Jat community and located in the basti of Jat. The plaintiff has no right in the galli of Jat, and he cannot have any access to their basti by constructing a gate. The plaintiff is forcibly trying to damage the old wall without any right to do so. The plaintiff has concealed the material fact from the Courts. Plaintiff is not a proprietor of village Rehan as he does not have any proprietary right in any agricultural land, whereas the defendants are the proprietors of village Rehan and have absolute right over Abadi Deh. Therefore, it was prayed that the present suit be dismissed.

4. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

5. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 28.11.2000:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory/permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of