JUDGMENT 1. - By these two second appeals, the defendant-appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar, Headquarter at Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar in Civil Regular Appeal No. 20 of 2002 titled Satyanarayan Tiwari v. Umesh Kumar and others and Civil Regular Appeal No. 01 of 2003 titled Umesh Kumar v. Satyanarayan Tiwari whereby the two appeals filed against the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srimadhopur in Civil Suit No. 226/2000 (27/91) thereby granting part injunction in favour of the plaintiff, have been dismissed along with the cross objections filed by the defendants. 2. Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 8.12.2011 passed by the first appellate court in Civil Suit No. 226/2000 (27/91), these two appeals have been clubbed and the same are being decided by this common judgment. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the original plaintiff-respondent Satyanarayan Tiwari instituted a civil suit with the averment that vide registered sale deed dated 21.7.1962, he purchased the property in northern side of which there existed Moorti Mandir and in between both the buildings, a lane (???) was also lying open. The plaintiff pleaded that the property purchased measured 49' from North to South on the eastern side, on the western side it measured 46', from East to West on Northern side it measured 110' and southern side 110'. The plaintiff levelled the allegations of hindrance being caused by the defendants in the use of the lane as well as their encroachment and claimed the relief of declaration and injunction. 4. Defendants No. 2 to 4 submitted their written statement denying the contents of the plaint. It was further pleaded that the lane in question between both the properties was under the ownership of the defendants and the plaintiff has no right to use the same. 5. 4. Defendants No. 2 to 4 submitted their written statement denying the contents of the plaint. It was further pleaded that the lane in question between both the properties was under the ownership of the defendants and the plaintiff has no right to use the same. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following fifteen Issues: 1- vk;k okni= esa iSjk uEcj 2 esa mYysf[kr lhekvksa o uki dk Hkw[k.M oknh us fnukad 31-7-1962 dks jftLVMZ nLrkost ls [kjhn fd;k\ ------- oknh 2- vk;k oknh us 21-9-1962 dks uxjikfydk dh fuek.kZ Lohd`fr ds vuqlkj okn i= ds iSjk uEcj 3 esa mYysf[kr fuekZ.k fd;k o 4-4-1970 dks oknh ykus okni= ds iSjk uEcj 4 esa mYysf[kr LV~hQ vkWQ ys.M dh tehu fuek.kZ Lohd`fr ysdj mfYyf[kr okn i= iSjk uEcj 4 fuekZ.k fd;k x;k\------oknh 3- vk;k oknh ds edku ds mRrj okyh xyh ftls okn ds uD'ks esa ch0Mh0bZ0,Q0th0,p0vkbZ0ts0 ds cjax gjs ls nf'kZr fd;k x;k gS rFkk rgkjr dk iks'kZu th] th&1] th&3 gS tks oknh ds dCts vf/kdkj mi;ksx miHkksx esa pyh vk jgh gS\--------oknh 4- vk;k okn i= ds layXu uD'ks esa gjs jax ls nf'kZr mRrjokyh eyh xyh esa oknh }kjk dz; dh gqbZ tehu dk iks'kZu Hkh 'kkfey gSa ftlesa oknh ds mRrjeq[kh njokts] gkSys] ukyh] ekS[ks] f[kM+dh cus gq, gSa rFkk njokts f[kM+dh ls oknh 20 o"kksZa ls vf/kd le; ls gok jks'kuh o mi;ksx vkokxeu ds vf/kdkj dk iz;ksx dj jgk gS rFkk mRrjokyh xyh esa oknh }kjk fufeZr ukyh ls ikuh cgdj vkus dk gd vk'kk;'k izkIr gks pqds gS\---------oknh 5- vk;k okn i= ds layXu uD'ks esa cjax jgs mRrjokyh xyh okn i= ds iSjk uEcj 5 esa mfYyf[kr lhekvksa dh dz; dh gqbZ tehu esa ls 4 QqV 9 bap tehu okn ds LokfeRo o dCts dh gS vkSj blds ckn xyh dk 'ks"k Hkkx rFkk oknh ds uksgjs dh mRrj nhokj bZ0ch0 ds mRrj esa ts vkbZ ,p rd lkoZtfud xyh gS ftlesa izfroknhx.k dk ck/kk Mkyus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS\-------oknh 6- vk;k oknh us vius uksgjs ftls okn ds uD'ks esa cjax ihys o v{kj bZ0vkQ0vks0ih0 ls fn[kk;k gS ftlesa ih fcUnq ij nks u;s rgkjr e; ckFk:e cukus o pkgj nhokjh esa yksu esa lSQVh Vsad cuk;s tkus ds fy, uxjikfydk [k.Msyk ls 15=582 (sic) dks fof/kiw.kZ btktr yh vkSj e; nqNrh izFke eafty ds edkukr cuk;s vkSj mRrj fn'kk esa f[kM+dh ds ekS[ks gok jks'kuh vkfn ds fy, j[ks\-----oknh 7- vk;k oknmi= ds iSjk uEcj 7 esa mfYyf[kr izdkj ls okn ds layXu uD'ks esa gjk iks'kZu th0th0&1] th&3 ds laca/k esa dCtk eq[kyQkuk ifjiDo gksdj LokfeRo esa cny pqdk gS vksj izfroknhx.k dks dksbZ vf/kdkj gS rks Hkh /kkjk 27 Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr Lor% izHkko 'kwU; gks x;s gS\------oknh 8- vk;k oknh dks izkIr btktr rkehj 3-1-1962] 4-4-1970 o 15-4-1982 ds fo:) uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 170 x 12 (Sic) ds rgr vihy ugha djus ds izfroknhx.k dks fookfnr fo"k; ij vkifRr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS\------- oknh 9- vk;k okni= ds iSjk uEcj 9 esa mfYyf[kr pcwrjk o rgkjr esa nch gqbZ Hkwfe ds ckjs esa oknh ds gok esa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh uhedkFkkuk esa LV~hi vkQ ys.M dks dz; fd;s tkus dh oknh dks Lohd`fr iznku dh] ftldk 'kqYd :0 46@& 9-1-1970 dks uxjikfydk us izkIr fd;sA bl izdkj oknh bl Hkwfe dk oS/k Lokeh gS rFkk iks'kZu th0 th&1] th&3 ij oknh dk dCtk cgSfl;r Lokeh 'kkafriw.kZ rjhds ls eq[kkyQkuk dCtk ds vk/kkj ij izkIr fd;k gS\ 10- vk;k izfroknh uEcj 2 us mRrjokyh xyh cjax gjs esa eafnj dh nf{k.kh nhokj ds lgkjs fcuk btktr uxjikfydk iq'rh iq[rk fuekZ.k dj vfrdze.k esa 40 QqV 9 bap x lok QqV o 18 QqV x lok QqV Hkwfe ij vfrdze.k dj fy;k ftls oknh vkns'kkRed fu"ks/kkKk ls gVk;s tkus dk vf/kdkj gS\----oknh 11- vk;k oknh ds mRrj esa fLFkr xyh LV~hi vkQ ys.M ugha gksdj izfroknh uEcj 2 ls 7 dh futh Hkwfe gS\-------izfroknh uEcj 2 ls 7 12- vk;k lkoZtfud Hkwfe dh mn~?kks"k.kk djkus ds fy, uxjikfydk vko';d i{kdkj gS ftls i{kdkj ugha cukus ls okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\------izfroknhx.k 13- vk;k fookfnr Hkwfe :0 1]35]000@& dh gS ftl ij dksVZ Qhl ugha nsus ls nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\------ izfroknhx.k 14- vk;k okn vfrdzeh O;fDr gksus ls U;k;ky; }kjk vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS\------izfroknhx.k 15- vuqrks"k\ 6. In support of his case, the plaintiff Satyanarayan examined himself as PW-1 and further examined PW-2 Ummed Singh, PW-3 Arjun Lal and PW-4 Ramcharan. The defendants, in defence, examined DW-1 Umesh Kumar, DW-2 Prabhu Dayal and DW-3 Vishwanath Parashar. The plaintiff and the defendants also produced documentary evidence in support of their respective case. 7. After hearing counsel for both the parties, the trial court decided Issues No. 1,2,3,4 and 5 partly in favour of the plaintiff and consequently, decreed the suit partly to the effect that the plaintiff has the right to flow water in the lane which is situated in the northern side and he has also a right to flow the water from western to the eastern side and further, that the plaintiff is also having the right of light and air from the said side. Injunction was also granted in favour of the plaintiff to the extent that he has the right to flow water in the Nali which is on the side of his house and that the plaintiff is having a right to get the wall of his house on the north and north-west repaired and white washed. The defendants were restrained from causing any hindrance either themselves or through their agent or servant in the use and occupation of the suit property. 8. Against the rejection of the part injunction, the plaintiff filed Appeal No. 20/2002 and against the grant of injunction, the defendant filed Appeal No. 01/2003. 9. After hearing the counsel for both the parties and thoroughly considering the evidence available on the record of the trial court and further after consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, came to the same conclusion with regard to the aforesaid Issues No. 1,2,3,4 and 5, which have been decided partly in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and ultimately, rejected both the appeals as also the cross objections filed by the defendant. 10. Against the judgment in both the appeals, the defendant-appellant has filed SBCSA No. 139/2012 along with an application u/s 5, Limitation Act and SBCSA No. 138/2012. 11. 10. Against the judgment in both the appeals, the defendant-appellant has filed SBCSA No. 139/2012 along with an application u/s 5, Limitation Act and SBCSA No. 138/2012. 11. Submission of counsel for the defendant-appellant, in both the appeals, is that the civil suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Municipality was not impleaded as a party and unless, the Municipality is impleaded as a party, no easementary right could be granted against the private defendant. 12. I have gone through record of the second appeals and further considered the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the defendant-appellant and on consideration of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the view that declaration and injunction was sought by the plaintiff against the defendant, therefore, the Municipality was not a necessary party and the civil suit has been rightly partly decreed. No substantial question of law is involved in both these second appeals, therefore, SBCSA No. 139/2012 is dismissed on the ground of delay and merit, and further, SBCSA No. 138/2012 is dismissed on merit. 13. Photostat copy of this judgment be placed on the file of SBCSA No. 139/2012.Appeal dismissed. *******