IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 SECOND APPEAL No. 2625 of 2023 SURDAS @ RUSTAM SINGH Versus SHRI KRISHNA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Rahul Chauhan - Advocate for respondents.

JUDGMENT This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15/09/2023 passed by District Judge, Mehgaon, District Bhind in Regular Civil Appeal No. 67/2020, by which judgment and decree dated 28/01/2020 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class I, Mehgaon, District Bhind in RCSA No. 68/2017 was set aside, and suit filed by appellant has been dismissed.

2. Appellant is the plaintiff who has lost his case from the First Appellate Court.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for easementary right. It is his case that plaintiff and defendants are the residents of same village and their houses are adjoining to each other. The only passage from the house of plaintiff to reach to the main road is a 10 feet wide street which is 60 feet long. Entire dispute is with regard to the aforesaid 10 feet wide street. The 10 feet wide street was shown in the plaint map in red colour. It was the case of plaintiff that about 40 to 50 years back, plaintiff and defendants had constructed their house, and in front of their house, an open land admeasuring 30 × 30 square feet was left open for tying the cattle as well as for storing cow dung, wood, wheat husk, as well as agricultural equipment. After the open space, there is a 10 feet wide street which was situated on the back side of the house of Vidyaram and Sirnam Singh. For the last 40 years, plaintiff and defendants are using the said street. There is no other way for appellant/plaintiff to reach his house except the 10 feet wide street. It was claimed that the house of defendants is adjoining to the main road, therefore, plaintiff has to pass from the front of the house of defendants, and defendants, with a dishonest intention, are trying to merge the gallery in the open space, and accordingly, on 07/02/2017, defendants had restrained the plaintiff and his mother to use the gallery and also extended a threat that they would forcibly take possession of the gallery. A panchayat was also convened and panchnama was also prepared, and defendants were also advised not to create any obstruction, but defendants did not agree to the suggestion given by the panchayat. Plaintiff also gave an application to the SDO, Mehgaon, District Bhind, Collector, District Bhind and Superintendent of Police, District Bhind, but no action was taken. On 16/05/2017, defendants nailed pegs to tie the animals, and now they are creating hurdles in use of the street. In future, they are intending to construct a room, and in case if any room is constructed on the street, then it will not be possible for plaintiff to reach his house, and accordingly, the suit was filed.

4. Defendants filed their written statement and accepted that plaintiff and defendants are neighbourers. However, remaining plaint averments were denied. It was claimed that there is no street at the place which has been shown in the plaint map. It was also claimed that there was no street adjoining to the wall of the house of Vidyaram. The house of defendants was constructed about 40 years back. On a land adjoining to the wall of the house of Vidyaram, one platform is situated which is being used by defendants to tie cattle. Unused stones are lying by the side of the wall of Vidyaram. On the land of defendants, personal hand pump, old Well, one neem tree, one babul tree are standing, and even the toilet of plaintiff is situated adjoining to the wall of the house of Sirnam. Since the toilet of plaintiff is constructed over the area which has been shown by the plaintiff in his plaint map as disputed street, therefore, the case of plaintiff is false. Plaintiff ha