The court affirmed that a private street does not permit public access without evidence to the contrary, thereby granting the plaintiff's request for permanent injunction.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

The defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed.

2. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from installing/opening gate towards the private street of the plaintiff which leads to the house of the plaintiff shown in the site plan as ABCD and in Pink Colour under Khasra No.563/1, Khata No.753/1142 area of village Channu, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide copy of Jamabandi for the year 2014-15, illegally and forcibly without once for all. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malout; which was duly affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court/District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 12.04.2019 passed in CA No.34 of 02.04.2018 filed by the appellant/defendant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia submits that in passing the impugned judgments, the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that the revenue record is contrary to the pleadings made in the suit regarding the identification of the property. It is submitted that the plaintiff/respondent had filed the suit regarding property vested in Khasra No.563/1 whereas the revenue record placed on record by the plaintiff shows the same is situated in different Khasra No.563/3.

4. It is further submitted that the Government has constructed the street in dispute but incorrect inference has been drawn by the Courts below regarding the same. The learned Courts below failed to appreciate that the government used to construct the public street which was meant for public; and therefore, the appellant had every right to use the said street. The learned Courts below have passed the impugned judgments in a very casual manner without appreciating the evidence. Undue weightage has been given to the oral statements. Reliance has been wrongly placed upon the cross-examination of the appellant/defendant who is a rustic villager while not appreciating the documentary evidence which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file in great detail.

7. Briefly stated the case of the respondent/plaintiff as set out in the plaint is that since long, he is resident of the suit house which falls in the Khasra No. 563/1. To this effect Aks Shijra as well as Jamabandi and rough site plan are also attached. It has been further submitted that there is a private street which leads to the home of the plaintiff from main road shown in the pink colour and marked as ABCD. The said street is private street which is kept by the plaintiff for his domestic use only and the plaintiff left the said area of the street from the land of his ownership which is running at the spot since last more than 40 years without any hindrance and the plaintiff is using the said street since its inception for ingress and outgress to his house. The house of the defendant is adjoining to the house of the plaintiff. The main gate of the house of the defendant opened towards the main road fully shown in the rough site plan. The defendant has no concern with the private street shown as ABCD. Now with his ulterior motive the defendant illegally, forcibly intended to install/open the gate towards the private street of the plaintiff shown in pink colour for which he has no right. Plaintiff requested the defendant not to install