JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant/plaintiff, Madan Kumar, has preferred this second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 09.11.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nathdwara, in Civil Appeal No.05/2005, partly allowing appellant's appeal modifying the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2005 passed by learned trial court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nathdwara, whereby the suit (Suit No.156/1994) filed by the plaintiff/appellant for permanent injunction, was dismissed. 2. While dismissing the suit filed by the appellant, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.01.2005 has drawn the following conclusion:- " bl izdkj oknh ds vuqlkj mlds edku esa vkus tkus dk jLrk iwoZ fn'kk esa gS tcfd blds }kjk izLrqr xokg us ftjg esa Li"V Lohdkj fd;k gS fd oknh ds vkokxeu dk jkLrk nf{k.k fn'kk esa gSA bl izdkj oknh o mlds xokg us fHkUu izd`fr ds dFku fd;s gSA bl xokg us viuh ftjg esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd nqdkusa 5&7 o"kZ ;k 7&8 o"kZ igys cuh gSA bl xokg ds c;kku fnukad 8-4-2003 dks ys[kc) fd;s x;s vFkkZr Loa; xokg ds vuqlkj c;ku ys[kc) fd;s tkus ds vf/kdre 8 o"kZ iwoZ mDr nqdkusa cuh gSaA lu~ 2003 ls 8 o"kZ dh iwoZ dh vof/k 1995 gksrh gS vFkkZr~ oknh us nkok nk;j fd;s tkus ds leorhZ dky esa mDr nqdkusa fufeZr dh gS rFkk izfroknh us Hkh vius tokc nkos esa Li"V fd;k fd oknh us mDr nqdkusa fcuk vf/kdkj ds voS/k :i ls fufeZr dh gaSA bl xokg us viuh ftjg esa vkxs ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd ;g xyr gS mlus ckoM+h ds fy;s efUnj e.My ds fo:) eqdnek dj j[kk gS] fQj dgk eSaus eqdnek lekt dh vksj ls dj j[kk gS o eSa ml eqdnesa esa lekt dh vksj ls i{kdkj gks ldrk gSA " 3. The first appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff was partly allowed by the appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 09.11.2006 in the following manner:- " 8 QyLo:i vihykFkhZ dh vihy vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkd lkoZtfud jkLrs dh Hkwfe ds laca/k esa oknh dk okn vLohdkj gksus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA bl laca/k esa fo}ku vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA vkaf'kd :i ls oknh dk okn Lohdkj djrs gq, bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh fMdzh ikfjr fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxk fd oknh ds edku dh iwohZ nhokj ds vkxs rhu fQj dh Hkwfe ds iwoZ&nf{k.k rjQ izfroknh la[;k ,d fdlh izdkj dk fuekZ.k dk;Z ugha djsa] gLr{ksi ugha djs vkSj u gh bl Hkwfe ds oknh ds mi;ksx miHkksx esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fookn gh mRiUu djsA " 4. The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff in this Court on 09.01.2007, in which notices were issued to the respondents by a coordinate bench of this Court on 16.01.2007 and by an interim order, it was directed that both the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to suit property or land in question. The matter was taken up for final hearing at the admission stage today. 5. Mr. Deelip Kawadia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/plaintiff submitted that both the courts below have erred in not granting complete permanent injunction to the plaintiff and the appellate court has wrongly modified the directions only to the extent that only 3 Ft. wide street may be left in front of eastern side wall of the residential house of the present plaintiff. The present appellant/plaintiff on the eastern side of his house, has constructed certain shops and the land in front of said eastern side of house is being used as a passage, which is said to be 3 Ft. wide for large number of years and that passage leads to the property belonging to Nathdwara Mandir Mandal office gate. The present appellant/plaintiff on the eastern side of his house, has constructed certain shops and the land in front of said eastern side of house is being used as a passage, which is said to be 3 Ft. wide for large number of years and that passage leads to the property belonging to Nathdwara Mandir Mandal office gate. He also produced the photographs of the site in question for perusal of the Court and also relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Gobind Pershad Jagdish Pershad v. New Delhi Municipal Committee reported in AIR 1993 SC 2313 , in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "Before a space can be held to be a "street" under the Punjab Municipal Act, there must be a dedication by the owner to the public. Where it is established that a verandah in front of a shop was a passage accessible to the public and it was being used for about two decades by the public for passing and re-passing, it must be held that the owner of the shop has dedicated the verandah to the public use. It is being used for passing and re-passing by public at large and as such is a "street" in terms of Section 3 (13) (a). The owner has, thus, surrendered his rights in the property for the benefit of the public. The user of the property is and always shall be with the public. Any space, passage, verandah, alley, road or footway dedicated to public by the owner for passing and re-passing, partakes the character of a "street" and no longer remains under the control of the owner. The owner has no right at all times to prevent the public from using the same." 6. On the other hand, Mr. D.R. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent-Nathdwara Mandir Mandal, has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and submitted that the main entrance of the residential house of the plaintiff is on the southern side and not on eastern side as claimed and as was apparently clear from the photographs produced by the appellant/plaintiff also before this Court also, on the eastern side, he has constructed certain shops and for parking of vehicles etc. in front of these shops, the land belonging to the defendant, Nathdwara Mandir Mandal, was being used, which was sought to be described as a passage for public. He further submitted that the land of Temple Board on the eastern side of the plaintiff's house is just adjacent to the land on which the plaintiff has made construction of his 3 storied house and the same was the land belonging to the respondent No.1/defendant, Temple Board, and was not a passage or street and, therefore, no injunction could be claimed by the appellant/plaintiff, without claiming the relief of declaration about the title of said land from the court below and, therefore, the courts below have rightly dismissed the plaintiff's suit for mere injunction. He further submitted that he has filed the cross objections in the present second appeal being Cross Objection No.4/2011-Nathdwara Mandir Mandal v. Madan Kumar & Anr. , which is also disposed of by this common judgment. It is submitted that the lower first appellate court below was not justified in granting a passage of 3 Ft. wide on the eastern side of the plaintiff's house as the said land belonging to the defendant, Nathdwara Mandir Mandal while holding that the suit of plaintiff deserves dismissal. He also drew the attention of the Court towards the statement of plaintiff's own witnesses viz. PW.1, Madan Kumar himself and PW.2, Raghunath, who have admitted before the trial court that on the eastern side of the plaintiff's house, whether the land belonged to the Government or to the defendant Nathdwara Mandir Mandal, is not known to them. 7. Mr. D.R. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant-Temple Board, therefore, submitted that the learned trial court was perfectly justified in dismissing the injunction suit of the appellant/plaintiff in its entirety and the learned appellate court has wrongly allowed the defendant-Temple Board to construct the wall leaving a passage of 3 Ft. wide on the eastern side of the plaintiff's house, whereas the main entrance of the plaintiff's house is on the southern side, which has been admitted by the plaintiff (PW.1) himself and PW.2, Raghunath. The appellate court itself has concluded that injunction suit deserve dismissal. 8. wide on the eastern side of the plaintiff's house, whereas the main entrance of the plaintiff's house is on the southern side, which has been admitted by the plaintiff (PW.1) himself and PW.2, Raghunath. The appellate court itself has concluded that injunction suit deserve dismissal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, and the findings of the courts below, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant. In the present suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff though finding of declaration of title is in favour of Nathdwara Mandir Mandal but it was neither necessary, nor recorded by the courts below as such but in view of admissions on the part of the plaintiff and his own witnesses that the land adjacent on the eastern side of his house was Government or land belonging to defendant, Nathdwara Mandir Mandal, the first appellate court has erred in modifying the decree and partly allowing the suit granting decree in favour of plaintiff/appellant for leaving 3 Ft. wide passage merely because the plaintiff had constructed certain shops on the eastern side of the plot in a three storeyed building on its ground floor. Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has also admitted that the main gate of the house, which is known as "Rithym-House" was on the southern side and not on the disputed eastern side of the plaintiff's house. The appellate court itself had concluded that the suit deserves to be dismissed, therefore, still giving this relief to the plaintiff by way of an addenda sort of tail end order is not appreciated. 9. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in the case of M/s Gobind Pershad Jagdish Pershad (supra) is not applicable in the present case as the land on the eastern side of the plaintiff's house cannot be said to be a "street" or the "passage" as held in that case. 10. The appellant/plaintiff cannot be permitted to seek an injunction against the defendant, in this manner that he constructed some shops, one does not know whether it was authorizedly done or without the due permission of the Municipality and thus using the land belonging to defendant, Nathdwara Mandir Mandal for parking of various vehicles and customers who visit these shops. 10. The appellant/plaintiff cannot be permitted to seek an injunction against the defendant, in this manner that he constructed some shops, one does not know whether it was authorizedly done or without the due permission of the Municipality and thus using the land belonging to defendant, Nathdwara Mandir Mandal for parking of various vehicles and customers who visit these shops. The directions of the appellate court to the extent of leaving 3 Ft. passage by the defendant is unjustified and the cross objection of the defendant/respondent, Nathdwara Mandir Mandal, therefore, deserve to be allowed by this Court and the suit for injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff deserves to be dismissed in its entirety. 11. The present second appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff, Madan Kumar is, therefore, dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff to the Nathdwara Mandir Mandal, within three months, and the cross objections of the defendant, Nathdwara Mandir Mandal (Cross Objection No.4/2011) are allowed and the directions of the first appellate court for leaving a passage of 3 Ft. wide on the eastern side of the plaintiff's house is deleted and the decree passed by the learned trial court dismissing the suit in its entirety, is upheld. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned parties and the courts below forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******