Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Singh vs Joginder Singh & Ors on 15 February, 2013
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
RSA No. 3648 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 3648 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision : 15.02.2013
Ajit Singh
....Appellant
V/s
Joginder Singh & ors.
....Respondents
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent no. 1. RAJAN GUPTA J.
Present appeal has been preferred by plaintiff-appellant impugning the judgments passed by both the courts below.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that findings arrived at by both the courts below are based on misreading of evidence and thus deserve to be set-aside.
Plea has been opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Brief factual background of the case is that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from blocking, obstructing or interfering in the passage ABCD in khasra no. 1017 & 1018 situated in village Daroli Kalan, district Jalandhar. It was averred that plaintiff was co-owner in Khasra No. 1017 whereas defendants are owners of khasra no. 1018 along with one Samitri Devi. With mutual consent of both the parties, they carved RSA No. 3648 of 2007 2 out a passage 11' X 54' as shown green in the site plan. In lieu of that a triangular piece of land shown as GDEF belonging to plaintiff was given to defendants since the year 1959. The portion ABCD was being used as passage by plaintiff for the last 40 years without any interference and hindrance by the respondents. Plaintiff has fixed his gate in the passage mentioned as point CD. On objection being raised by defendants regarding use of passage, plaintiff preferred the instant suit.
On notice, defendant no. 1 contested the suit and raised a preliminary objection by filing the written statement that khasra no. 1017 which belongs to plaintiff had nothing to do with the defendants. Khasra no. 1018 measuring 1Kanal 18 marlas belongs to Swaran Singh, Joginder Singh and Savitri Devi. They have got it partitioned, in which 2 marlas was left for passage for co-sharers. Execution of agreement in the year 1959 on the basis of which alleged passage came into existence was, however, denied. Other averments made in the plaint were also denied and prayed for dismissal of suit.
After considering the evidence on record, trial court dismissed the suit. Findings were upheld before the appellate court.
I find no ground to interfere in concurrent finding of facts of two courts below. It is evident that plaintiff was not able to prove the oral exchange stated to have taken place in the year 1959. No revenue entry was found in support thereof. Plaintiff was not able to show that any demarcation was carried out by any revenue official. Khasra no. 1018 was partitioned between co- RSA No. 3648 of 2007 3 sharers and 2 marlas were kept apart as passage. Courts below, thus, came to the conclusion that plaintiff had no right to claim injunction. It appears that evidence has been correctly appreciated by both the courts below. No substantial question of law arises warranting interference in second appeal. Dismissed.
February 15, 2013 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE