Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2

therein that they (plaintiffs) having their orchard on the land comprised in Khasra No.50, 51, 84, 85 in Up Mohal Danmochhe, Tehsil Pooh, District Kinnaur (H.P) (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') and land of .

the defendant Chhering Dorje, is situated over Khasra No.136. There is a water channel (Kuhal) on Khasra No.132, in the same Mohal. The plaintiffs have been exercising right of easement by way of going to their respective fields and houses alongwith the edges (mainds) of Khasra No.132 for the last more than 30 years peacefully, openly, continuously, without any interruption and have also been transporting their agricultural products such as apple fruit etc. to the market through the same path. The defendants obstructed the path in the month of October, 2003 without assigning any reason.

crop. He is using this path for the last more than 30 years. The path in question was closed in the year 2003, by the defendants by constructing a wall, as a result of which, the plaintiffs suffered loss. The water channel is not owned by the defendants, but is of the villagers and there is no loss to the plaintiff to pass through the edges of this Kuhal.

Plaintiff has also made an application, under Section 107 and 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, defendants were directed to be of good conduct for one year. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there is land of Horticulture Department above his land. He has denied that he has dispute with the Horticulture Department about the path. He has further denied that the path to his orchard and houses passes through the nursery of Horticulture Department. The water channel is about three metres in width. He has denied that he has no right to pass through the edges of Kuhal. PW-2, Prittam Chand, Ex-

There is no custom of walking on the edges of Kuhal. The land is sandy and in case, path is made along side the Kuhal, then Kuhal can be damaged. The edges of the Kuhal are used only for water and no other purpose. There is also danger to the branches of the trees, in case, the apple boxes are transported along side the water channel. No other person of the village has used this path. In his cross-examination, he .

has stated that the police and Pradhan have also visited the spot. The passage which, he has shown is near the Horticulture farm. He has denied that in order to pass through Horticulture farm, the plaintiff has go to ascending through a long distance and then again has to walk for about ½ KM through the village, whereas the path in dispute is just adjoining to his orchard. He has admitted that the plaintiffs never tried to walk through his land. DW-2, Gulab Singh, has also stated that the path of the plaintiffs passes through the Government farm, which is being used by them. The plaintiffs have encroached upon the Government land and closed the path. In his cross-examination, he has denied that the plaintiffs are transporting their apple on the edges of Khasra No.132. He has further stated that Kuhal is in his land, but he does not remember the Khasra number. He has denied that no loss is caused to him, in case, the person walks on the edges of the Kuhal.