IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3522 of 2006 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 27, 2026 Gian Chand ... Appellant Versus Sawan Ram ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present:- Mr. Rohit Singh and Mr. Navita Singh Dinarpur, Advocates for the appellant.

Mr. Amanjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for the respondent.

********

RAMESH KUMARI, J.

1. The instant regular second appeal has been filed filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2006 passed by first Appellate Court whereby, the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated

16.02.2005 passed by the trial court dismissing the suit, has been dismissed.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’) from interfering in the reserved passage (rasta-khas) connecting the house of the plaintiff, shown as red in the attached site plan Ex.P-8 and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to reconstruct the wall AB, demolished by him intervening the property of the defendant and the passage in question. It has been averred that Smt. Pushpa Devi, previous owner of the property situated on the east of the said passage, had acknowledged his exclusive right of passage by executing an agreement Ex.P-3 and also agreed not to cause any interference in his exclusive usery rights on the passage. The defendant, who has purchased the property from Smt. Pushpa Dvi, has threatened to interfere in the passage, without any right, title or interest. The defendant has demolished the intervening wall at Point AB, which was dividing the property of plaintiff and the property purchased by the defendant, with an intention to use the passage in dispute, for his property whereas the outlet of house of defendant is towards municipal street situated on South of his property. The defendant has been repeatedly requested by the plaintiff not to interfere in his exclusive usery rights on the passage in dispute and to reconstruct the wall demolished by the defendant at point A, B, but he is adamant. Hence, the present suit came to be filed.

3. Upon notice, the defendant appeared and contested the claim of the plaintiff, by filing his written statement alleging therein that the property purchased by him, was previously owned by Smt. Pushpa Devi, Smt. Bhuria, Smt. Somi, Rakesh and Raj Kumar, Rajni and Payal Devi, and therefore, Smt. Pushpa Devi, had no right to execute any alleged agreement in favour of the plaintiff qua the passage in dispute, because she was not exclusive owner and moreover the passage in dispute is a public street vested in Municipal Committee, Buria and being used by several persons who have their houses abutting the said passage and no one has a right to block the same. The defendant denied the existence of wall at point AB as alleged by the plaintiff and admitted the existence of main street adjoining to the house purchased by him, but that does not amount to restrain him from using the passage.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court vide order dated 25.05.1995:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction, as alleged in the plaint?OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction as alleged in the plaint?OPP

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

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD.

6. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs under Section

35-A CPC?OPD.

7. Relief.

5. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined as many as six witnesses i.e. Pawan Kumar as PW1, Samey Singh as PW2, Joginder S