##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

RSA-4606-1999 (O&M)

SURTA

. . . . Appellant

Vs.

KAPOOR SINGH AND OTHERS

. . . . Respondents

****

Reserved on: 24.02.2026

Pronounced on: 27.02.2026

Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate, for the respondents.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by one of the

defendants in Civil Suit No.111 of 1994 (who was also the plaintiff in Civil Suit

No.916 of 1995), assailing the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate

Court, whereby the suit of plaintiff Kapoor Singh for permanent injunction was

decreed, and the suit of the present appellant for mandatory injunction was

dismissed.

Factual Matrix :

2. Plaintiff Kapoor Singh instituted Civil Suit No.111 of 1994 seeking a

decree of permanent injunction against defendants Surta, Sukhbir and Subhash in

respect to the portion marked OPCQ in the site plan appended with the plaint. The

plaintiff pleaded that the said portion was a gali (passage) left for common use at

the time of ancestral partition and that doors of his house opened towards the said

passage. Alleging interference and attempted encroachment by the defendants, he

sought decree of permanent injunction against obstruction and against closure of

the doors marked X and Y.

1 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 01-03-2026 15:49:16 :::

RSA-4606-1999 2026:PHHC:032110

3. The defendants contested the suit by denying the alleged partition and

the existence of any passage. According to them, the disputed portion formed part

of their property obtained in oral exchange from Mir Singh and that only a blind

lane existed towards the northern side. They further asserted that the plaintiff had

no right to keep openings towards the disputed land.

4. The defendants also filed Civil Suit No.916 of 1995 seeking mandatory

injunction directing Kapoor Singh to close the openings marked X and Y and to

restrain him from opening any door or window towards the eastern side of his

house, reiterating that the disputed property formed part of their residential house.

5. Both suits were consolidated and Civil Suit No.111 of 1994 was treated

as the main case. The trial Court framed consolidated issues regarding entitlement

to permanent injunction, entitlement to mandatory injunction, locus standi,

maintainability, estoppel and relief.

6. Findings of the Trial Court : Upon appreciation of the evidence, the

trial Court dismissed the suit filed by Kapoor Singh, and decreed the suit filed by the

present appellant vide common judgment dated 11.11.1998. The trial Court held

that the plaintiff failed to prove that the disputed portion was a gali or was left for

common use. The Court also noticed non-examination of the draftsman of the site

plan and relied upon admissions regarding existence of defendants’ property

towards the eastern side.

7. Findings of the First Appellate Court : Aggrieved, Kapoor Singh

preferred Civil Appeal No.282 of 1998. The first Appellate Court re-appreciated the

evidence and reversed the findings of the trial Court vide judgment dated

23.10.1999. The Appellate Court relied upon admissions of defendants’ witnesses

regarding relationship between the parties, ancestral partition, construction of

plaintiff’s house about two decades earlier, and existence of openings at points X

and Y being used by the plaintiff. It was held that the existence of the passage

marked OPCQ stood established through oral evidence and admissions of defence

witnesses. Consequently, the Appellate Court decreed the suit for permanent

injunction filed by Kapoor Singh, and dismissed the suit for mandatory injunction

filed by the present appellant.

Page 2 of 4

2 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 01-03-2026 15:49:17 :::

RSA-4606-1999 2026:PHHC:032110

Submissions of the Parties

8.1 Assailing the reversal, learned counsel for the appellant contends that

the Appellate Court erred in interfering with we