producing any such agreement leading to the expansion of the 6 feet wide common passage into 12 feet. The defendant sale deed which is the prior deed states that there is existence of 6 ft wide common passage. Though the plaintiff contended that the defendant agreed that they will construct their respective building by leaving further 3 ft by each plot owners in respect of extension of common passage to make 6 ft wide common passage into 12 ft common passage which will be enjoyed by both the parties but at this stage plaintiffs have nothing to support the same and in the absence of any such support the trial court was justified in observing that the plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima facie case in support of granting injunction. Moreover, the plaintiffs have prayed mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage for restoration of the original position of alleged 12 ft common passage from west to east but at this stage, the plaintiffs have failed to make out prima facie case over his contention that the schedule passage in 12 feet wide through easement by grant or by easement of necessity. The question of granting temporary and mandatory injunction for restoration of the passage in its original possession assuming that after defendant’s purchase, by way of any oral agreement, 6 ft wide passage has been expanded into 12 ft wide passage, is not sustainable at this early stage of hearing without proper appreciation of evidence.
