JUDGMENT RAJIV SHARMA, J.- 1. THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.5.2005 rendered by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No.95 of 2004. 2. "KEY facts" necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. According to the plaintiff, suit land of Khata No. 32 situated in Mouza Bani is jointly owned and possessed by the parties to suit. Appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant' for convenience sake) has constructed a house on the part of suit land comprised in Khasra Nos. 338 and 339 and Khasra No.340 is possessed by the plaintiff. There is a passage shown at points 'A' and 'B' with red ink in the site plan, which is being used by the plaintiff and his family members as ingress and outgress to his house situated in Khasra No. 340 passing through khasra Nos. 338 and 339. This is the only approach to the house of the plaintiff. Plaintiff, being co-owner, has every right to use the passage. However, defendant nine months back, placed rolling shutter/gate at points 'A' and 'B' and obstructed user of path by the plaintiff despite his objection. It is in these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit. Suit was contested by the defendant. According to the written statement filed by the defendant, parties to suit are recorded as joint owners in possession in revenue record but they are in separate and exclusive possession over their shares of land by mutual agreement. The site plan submitted by the plaintiff was incorrect. There was no path over the suit land. The house of the defendant alongwith boundary wall and gate/rolling shutter were in existence for the last more than 20 years. The plaintiff has no right to disturb the possession of the defendant. The matter was resolved by the local Gram Panchayat. 3. REPLICATION was filed by the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) framed the issues on 28.5.2002. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) decreed the suit on 23.8.2004. Defendant preferred an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2004 against the judgment and decree dated 23.8.2004 before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur. The plaintiff also filed cross-objections against the judgment bearing No. 108 of 2004. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) decreed the suit on 23.8.2004. Defendant preferred an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2004 against the judgment and decree dated 23.8.2004 before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur. The plaintiff also filed cross-objections against the judgment bearing No. 108 of 2004. Learned District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant. Cross-objections filed by the plaintiff were allowed by the District Judge permitting the plaintiff to make good deficiency in court fee within 30 days of passing the judgment. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. It was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. "Whether in a circumstance where the parties admittedly are in separate and exclusive possession of their separate parcels of land for years by private arrangement can possession be disturbed by passing a decree of mandatory and prohibitory injunction? 2. Whether the learned courts below have erred in misreading the agreement Ex.D-1 so as to arrive at a different finding? 4. MR. M.S. Guleria has vehemently argued that when the parties are in separate and exclusive possession of their separate shares for years on the basis of private arrangement, possession of the defendant could not be disturbed. He then argued that both the courts below have misread Ex.D-1 dated 18.8.1999. Mr. Navlesh Verma has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records and pleadings carefully. 6. SINCE both the substantial questions of law are interconnected and interlinked, the same are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. Pw-1 Sunil Kumar is son of plaintiff. He has led his evidence by filing an affidavit. He is the holder of General Power of Attorney on behalf of his father executed in his favour vide Ex.Pw-1/A. According to him, they have constructed house comprising of six rooms on Khasra No. 340, 7-8 years back. The passage to their house is through khasra Nos. 338 and 339. These khasra numbers are jointly owned by the parties. They are using the path in existence by the side of the house of defendant. Defendant has put up a shutter/grill on this path 8-9 months back. They requested him not to do so. An application was also filed before the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat visited the spot. These khasra numbers are jointly owned by the parties. They are using the path in existence by the side of the house of defendant. Defendant has put up a shutter/grill on this path 8-9 months back. They requested him not to do so. An application was also filed before the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat visited the spot. They are entitled to use this path. There is no alternative path to reach Khasra No. 340. Privacy of defendant is not affected. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that his house is situated on khasra No. 340 and house of defendant is situated on khasra Nos. 338 and 339. Defendant has constructed his house 20-22 years back. They have constructed their house 7-8 years back. When they started constructing the house, an application was given to the Gram Panchayat and the agreement was executed vide Ex.D-1 dated 18.8.1999. He has put his signatures on the same. There is no alternative path available to them. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that in front of the house of defendant at a distance of 10-20 feet there is a thorough fare. They have not acted upon the compromise since defendant has obstructed their path. 7. PW-2 Dhian Singh has also led his evidence by way of an affidavit. According to him, he knew the parties. He has seen the disputed path. The same is used by his family members for agriculture purposes. They were never stopped by anybody. No damage has been caused to the property of the defendant. The disputed path is jointly owned by the parties. Defendant has put shutter on the path. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the parties are in respective possession of their shares. Defendant has constructed his house 20 years back. He has put up the gate one year back. He could not depose which path is being used by the plaintiff. 8. PW-3 Ashok Kumar has also led his evidence by filing an affidavit. The averments contained in the affidavit are the same as stated by PW-2 Dhian Singh in his affidavit. In his cross-examination firstly he deposed that the parties are in possession of their respective shares, but thereafter volunteered that the land is jointly owned by the parties. He has denied the suggestion that there is a thorough fare in existence, which can be used by the plaintiff. In his cross-examination firstly he deposed that the parties are in possession of their respective shares, but thereafter volunteered that the land is jointly owned by the parties. He has denied the suggestion that there is a thorough fare in existence, which can be used by the plaintiff. To similar effect PW-4 Vijay Kumar has led his evidence by filing an affidavit. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the parties are in separate possession, but volunteered that it is jointly owned. He has also denied the suggestion that thorough fare exists in front of the house of defendant. He did not know which path is being used by the plaintiff. 9. PW-5 Naresh Kumar has prepared the site plan Ex.PW-5/A. He has deposed in his cross-examination that he has prepared the site plan at Hamirpur, but in further cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that he has not seen the spot. 10. DW-1 Raj Pal Singh has led his evidence by filing an affidavit. It is stated in the affidavit that khasra No. 340 was in possession of the plaintiff since 1975. Khasra Nos. 338 and 339 were in his possession. He has constructed gate and boundary wall 20-22 years back. The matter was compromised vide Ex. D-1 dated 17.8.1999. In case the path is permitted to be used by the plaintiff, his privacy would be affected. According to him, Ex.PW-5/A was wrongly prepared. In his cross- examination, he has admitted that the disputed path is jointly owned by them. Plaintiff has constructed his house on khasra No. 340 comprising six rooms. In his cross- examination, he has admitted that at the time when the family was joint to reach Khasra No. 340, the passage used to go through khasra Nos. 338 and 339. He has also admitted that alternative path is not in existence. He has admitted his signatures Ex.P.A on agreement. Dw-2 Smt. Nirmala Devi has also led her evidence by filing an affidavit. According to her, the parties were in their respective possession of the shares. Defendant has constructed his house, gate and boundary wall 20-22 years back. Plaintiff is using the old path, which was used by them earlier and there is no obstruction. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the disputed path is jointly owned by the parties. She has also admitted that near the gate, 50 feet boundary wall has been constructed. Defendant has constructed his house, gate and boundary wall 20-22 years back. Plaintiff is using the old path, which was used by them earlier and there is no obstruction. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the disputed path is jointly owned by the parties. She has also admitted that near the gate, 50 feet boundary wall has been constructed. She has also admitted that she is not on talking terms with the plaintiff. 11. ACCORDING to copy of Missal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid for the year 1993-94 Ex.P-1, the parties are recorded as co-owners of the suit land. Khasra No. 340 is entered in exclusive possession of the plaintiff as co-owner and that of Khasra Nos. 338 and 339 ownership and possession of the defendant as co-owner. PW-1 Sunil Kumar has deposed that they have constructed house on Khasra No. 340 and the defendant has constructed his house on Khasra Nos. 338 and 339. According to him, only path available to reach Khasra No. 340 is through Khasra Nos. 338 and 339, which has been obstructed by the defendant. PW-2 Dhian Singh has also deposed that parties are in possession of their respective shares. Defendant has constructed a house 20 years back. PW-3 Ashok Kumar has deposed that the parties are in possession of their respective shares, though later on he has stated that it is jointly owned. He has denied the suggestion, as noticed above, that plaintiff can reach his house by using thorough fare. To similar effect is the statement of PW-4 Vijay Kumar. PW-5 Naresh Kumar has proved Ex.PW-5/A, which has been prepared after visiting the spot. Defendant has admitted in his evidence that no alternative path is in existence and when the families were joint, ingress to Khasra No. 340 was through Khasra Nos. 338 and 339. He has also admitted signatures on the compromise. It is clear from Ex.PW-5/A that defendant has obstructed the path used by the parties shown in red ink at points 'A' and 'B' by putting shutter/grill. Plaintiff had been using this passage to go to his house and also for agriculture purposes. DW-2 has admitted the existence of 50 feet boundary wall with the gate. She has also admitted that civil litigation is going on with the plaintiff. Defendant could not obstruct the passage used by the plaintiff since the land is jointly owned by the parties. DW-2 has admitted the existence of 50 feet boundary wall with the gate. She has also admitted that civil litigation is going on with the plaintiff. Defendant could not obstruct the passage used by the plaintiff since the land is jointly owned by the parties. The only path available to reach Khasra No. 340 is through Khasra Nos. 338 and 339. Defendant has not led any tangible evidence to establish that any alternative path is available to the plaintiff to reach Khasra No. 340. 12. LEARNED Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sher Singh and another versus Murti Mahadev and others, 1987 P.L.J. 299 (Pb. & H) has held as under: "4. The next submission of the learned counsel is that since the encroachments were admitted, the plaintiff could file a suit for possession of the land allegedly encroached upon and the suit for a mandatory was not maintainable. This contention is simply to be noticed and repelled. Respondent No.1 is not claiming exclusive possession of the property encroached upon by the defendants. The claim of Madho Dass as a Mahant of the Mandir is for removal of encroachments from the land which otherwise is treated to be in the joint possession of the entire body of the proprietors of the village. As is evident from the revenue record, the land in suit is owned by Mushtarka Malkan and is shown to be in possession of Murti Mahadev. No proprietor can claim a right to exclusive possession of such a land jointly owned by the proprietary body of the village or obstruct its user for the common purposes of the village for which it is reserved. A suit for mandatory injunction for removal of encroachment by one of the persons interested in the common property of the village without claiming exclusive possession thereto is maintainable." Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, including Ex. D-1 dated 18.8.1999. It was not necessary for the plaintiff to file suit for partition, as argued by Mr. M. S. Guleria, to establish the use of the passage to reach Khasra No. 340. Both the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 13. CONSEQUENTLY, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. M. S. Guleria, to establish the use of the passage to reach Khasra No. 340. Both the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 13. CONSEQUENTLY, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.