IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 22.12.2025

Karan Singh and another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Geeta and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Defendants No. 3 and 4 are in second appeal against the

concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 herein for permanent injunction with consequential relief of mandatory injunction, has been

decreed by both the Courts below.

2. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs in the plaint was that plaintiffs are owners in possession of residential plots/houses as described in the plaint. It was averred that plaintiffs has purchased the said plots vide registered Sale Deeds No. 1109, 638 and 2408 from defendants No. 1 and 4. It was pleaded that at the time of purchasing the plots, plaintiffs had been provided with Rasta having width of 10 feet for outgress and ingress of the plaintiffs. It was contended that defendants wanted to block the said Rasta by raising construction thereupon illegally and forcibly without having any right. It was also alleged that defendants tried to dig up the foundation over the disputed Rasta; and that the defendants

wanted to include the said Rasta in their property. The defendants did not pay any heed to the request of the plaintiffs to not to block the Rasta and had flatly refused request of the plaintiffs on 14.03.2012. As such, plaintiffs had instituted the present suit for permanent injunction with consequential relief of mandatory injunction on 15.03.2012.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2016, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs with cost “to the effect that the defendants are hereby restrained from making any encroachment over any part or portion of said Rasta specifically over the portion marked by letters ABCD in the site plan Ex. P1 and further if any such encroachment has been made by the defendants, a mandatory injunction is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that defendants are hereby directed to remove the said encroachment and thereupon restrain themselves from making any encroachment of the said portion of passage.”

4. The Civil Appeal filed by all the 4 defendants was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 08.05.2019. Hence, present second appeal by the defendants No. 3 and 4. 5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that while passing the impugned judgments and decrees, both the Courts below misread and misconstrued the entire evidence placed on record. As a matter of fact, Khasra No.175 was owned by the defendants/appellants and at the time of carving out plots, the appellants left a Rasta in the shape of blind alley from South to North upto plot No.174 which is depicted in site plan Ex.D6. The revenue record produced on record in evidence clearly established that there is no Rasta in Khasra No. 174 and Khasra No.174 is recorded under the ownership of Gram Panchayat and in possession of Pyare, Shri Ram etc. as Gair Marusi and nowhere any Rasta is shown to be exists out of Khasra No.174 which is connected with Khasra No. 175. Thus, finding to the effect that the Rasta which was left by the defendants out of their own land in Khasra No. 175 connects to the Rasta in Khasra No. 174.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that while passing the impugned judgments and decrees, the Ld. Courts below totally overlooked the revenue record which shows that Khasra No. 174 is owned by Gram Panchayat and possessed by private persons as Gair Marusi and there is no Rasta in Khasra No. 174 which connects Khasra No. 175 to Jhajjar-Kunjaiya Road. The Rasta which is provided to the plaintiffs in Khasra No. 175, has been provided by the