Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. The learned Counsel for the defendants would put forth and set forth his arguments which could pithily and concisely be set out thus:

(i) Ex.B.1, the Village map, being the public document, would unambiguously and unequivocally display and demonstrate that the said common pathway is having a width of 5 1/4 feet, whereas in an unauthenticated manner, the plaintiffs by placing reliance on their self-serving documents would project and contend vainly and vexatiously that the width of the pathway, is 2 1/2 C.C [2 3/4 feet X 2 1/2 = 6.8 feet]

21. Whereas the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs citing the decisions set out supra, would submit that so far the pathway is concerned, the method and manner of viewing the problem is different and inasmuch as the defendants shortened the width of the pathway unduly, it warranted the interference of the Courts and accordingly, both the Courts below correctly decreed the suit paving no way for the second appeal.

22. The bedrock of the decisions cited on the side of the defendants is to the effect that if one co-owner makes any construction or effects some modification, blindly no demolition by way of granting mandatory injunction would arise. But, those decisions are not relating to any common pathway. Here, one important fact should not be lost sight of. The width of the pathway itself is small. At this juncture, it has to be seen as to what is the actual width of the pathway.

24. The cardinal and core question arises as to whether the right of a party has to be decided based on the village map or based on authentic documents touching the right of the rival parties. In respect of the village map vis-a- vis authentic documents, the answer is at once clear that the dispute has to be resolved only based on authentic documents.

25. Here, Exs.A.1 and A.2 would refer to the suit common pathway of width of of 2 + C.C. and in fact, from the evidence, it could be seen pellucidly and palpably that the said extent was adopted and adhered to quite uptill the erring construction put up by the defendants. The Advocate Commissioner in his report and sketch gave a picturesque description as to the open space available adjacent to the defendants' property and the width of that open space varies from one portion to another, with which this Court is not very much concerned. But, the width of 6.8 feet is available through out but for offending staircase. At the entrance, it is shown by the Advocate Commissioner that the newly offending the staircase is having a width of 2 feet and the remaining open space is having a width of 5 1/2 feet. As such, it is clear that before raising the construction of the staircase by the defendants, there existed, at the spot, a common pathway having a width of 6.8 feet. A fortiori, I could see considerable force in the contention of the plaintiffs that as per Exs.A.1 and A.2, there existed a common pathway having a width of 6.8 feet. There is no basis at all to hold that the width of the common pathway was only 5 + feet. Absolutely, there is no reliable oral and documentary evidence to buttress and fortify the claim of the defendants that the width of the common pathway was only 5 1/2 feet or 5 1/4 feet.

29. The learned Counsel for the defendants would submit that even if it is of 6.8 feet width of common pathway, a lorry cannot be driven along the passage as to reach the plaintiffs' houses which are situated at the end of that pathway.

30. Whereas the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that some goods vehicles of considerable size have to be taken along that passage to the plaintiffs' houses, because at times, heavy articles have to be transported to their houses or out of their houses and at that time, 5 + feet width of pathway would not be sufficient at all even by phantasmagorical thoughts.