The main legal point established in the judgment is the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 to decide the question of title regarding the suit property.

Sneh Prashar, J.

This was Regular Second Appeal filed by appellants-plaintiffs Ramala (since deceased) and Jai Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) impugning the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Panchkula whereby the appeal filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2016 passed in Case No.4028 of 2013 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, decreeing the suit for permanent injunction subject to the rider that if respondent-defendant No.1 Gram Panchayat succeeds in taking possession of the suit property back from the appellants in the proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations), 1961 (for short, “the Act of 1961”), in that eventuality, the respondents-defendants would be at liberty to raise construction of the gali-sare-aam at the site in dispute, was dismissed and the suit itself of the appellants-plaintiffs was also dismissed.

2. The facts, as garnered from the record, are that appellants-plaintiffs being residents of village Rampur, Tehsil and District Panchkula filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering in possession of their respective houses as well as the open space lying vacant in front of their houses (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) situated within the abadi deh of village Rampur, which were depicted with letters ABCD and CDEF in the site plan attached with the plaint. They also sought an injunctive order against the respondents from constructing a street through the suit property and submitted that towards western side of their houses, there is a 3 feet wide drain (Nala) marked with letters ADE in the site plan and beyond the drain there is already a 14 feet wide main cemented street constructed by the Gram Panchayat. On the northern as well as southern side of their houses also, there is a cemented street constructed by the Gram Panchayat. The vacant space in front of their houses is in their possession and they have been storing fodder in the same and have also installed pegs, mangers etc. and have planted trees for shadow for their animals. Since they did not cast vote in favour of Suresh Pal (respondent No.2) in the election of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of the village, he started nourishing a grudge against them and with the help of henchmen is bent upon to dispossess them illegally and construct a street through the suit property.

3. The suit was contested by the respondents raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the suit, cause of action and jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try and entertain the suit. They submitted that no drain (Nala) adjoins the houses of the appellants on the western side, rather the Nala exists in between the two streets. The houses of the appellants are situated on a 11 feet wide street which goes upto P.W.D. Road. There exist two public streets, one starts from the P.W.D. Road and goes towards Khera village and the other starts from the northern side of the houses of the appellants and goes towards P.W.D. Road upto the well. Appellant No.2 and his son in the last week of March, 2013 by putting earth on a portion of the common passage had made illegal encroachment on the public street. Submitting that with an intention to grab 11 feet wide public street the appellants had filed the instant suit presenting wrong facts, a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.

4. On the rival contentions of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for on the ground mentioned in the plaint? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is not legally maintainable in the present form? OPD.

3. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD.

5. Relief.

Both the partie