defendants and residential house as well as the disputed land as shown in site plan Ex.P1 is part and parcel of Khasra No.35//1, therefore, to claim ownership rights qua the same, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to seek declaration and prove his ownership as well as exclusive possession over the same. However, he did nothing but simply filed a suit for permanent injunction. Thus, in the absence of any such evidence to show that plaintiff had exclusive title to the residential house as well as the disputed rasta, it has to be said that all the cosharers including the plaintiff as well the defendants would be having title to the disputed land in their capacity as co-owners. Plaintiff himself has shown the disputed land ABDC as a gali though he has categorized the same as his personal gali. This goes to show that the disputed property is being used as a passage by the co-sharers. Moreover, in the site plan Ex.P1, near point-D, an electric pole is shown in the disputed property which also goes to prove that disputed property is a passage which is being used by the inhabitants of the village. In case, disputed property was personal gali of the plaintiff then there was no question of any electronic pole
