NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of reversal; whereby suit filed by the appellant for declaration and injunction although decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi, has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar.

2. It was pleaded in the plaint that Daut Ram, grandfather of the plaintiff was owner in possession of a plot which was inherited by father of the plaintiff and uncle of the plaintiff namely Sudha. From father of the plaintiff, the said plot was inherited by the plaintiff alongwith his brother, namely, Bir Singh. It was averred in the plaint that there was another plot in the adjoining area which belonged to one Patram deceased, who had died issueless; and he had given his plot measuring 315 sq.yds. to Harke Ram, Ram Swaroop and the plaintiff i.e. plot measuring 250 sq.yds. was given to Harke Ram and Ram Swaroop; and remaining 65 sq.yds was given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further averred that defendants had got plot measuring 250 sq.yds. from said Harke Ram and Ram Swaroop in exchange and started raising construction of their house. At the time of construction, they had put their rafters on the walls of the plaintiff at point/wall JK and IJ and when the plaintiff objected to it, the defendants requested the plaintiff to allow them to put their rafters on the said walls, by further stating that they had paucity of funds and they shall raise construction of their separate walls adjoining to the walls of the plaintiff after some time. However, they had not done so till date. Plaintiff wanted to fix a new gate at point AK in a passage shown by the letters ADJK in the attached Site Plan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘disputed property’) for entering to his residential house but defendants were not allowing him to fix the gate at that point. It was alleged that on 29.05.2005 when plaintiff started to fix a new gate on the disputed point, defendants alongwith their associates came at the spot with weapons and threatened the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit was filed on 07.06.2005.

3. Upon notice, defendants had resisted the claim of the plaintiff by asserting that the disputed property is a village common street from time immemorial which is 9 feet wide and 75 feet long and which is existing between the houses of the parties to the suit and some other persons of the locality and the plaintiff has got no concern with this public street being shamlat deh duly vested in Gram Panchayat Madan Heri; that the plaintiff has got no right to construct any door or wall on the disputed property but the plaintiff wants to usurp the land of public street by including the same in his residential house. Denying the allegations, the defendants controverted the stand of plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi had decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2006 as follows:-

“In view of my findings arrived at on various issues above, the present suit succeeds and the same is accordingly decreed with costs as prayed for and the plaintiff is declared to be the owner in possession of the residential house marked with letters ABCDEFGHIJK which also includes the disputed property and the defendants are further restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession/use of the plaintiff of his residential house and from interfering in affixing a gate at point AK by the plaintiff in any manner forever. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.”

5. However, the Civil Appeal filed by the defendants was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.02.2011; thereby setting aside judgment and decree dated 20.12.2006 passed by learned Trial Court and dismissing suit of the plaintiff. Hence, the pr