IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (212-1)

RSA-1844-2012 (O&M)

Date of decision:- 14.01.2025 SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS … APPELLANTS Versus KASHMIRI LAL ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. I.S.Brar, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Anish Setia, Advocate, Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate and Mr. Karan Diwan, Advocate for the respondent.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL

1. Assailing the finding recorded by the first appellate Court, defendants are before this Court in the instant second appeal.

2. Pleaded case of respondent-plaintiff is that he is exclusive owner of agricultural land in village Burj Kela, Teshil Phillaur, District Ludhiana and he has installed a tube-well as well as made some temporary construction. The passage to his land is through khasra No.17 and khasra No.24/1, which is a private passage and the defendants have no right over it. There was a litigation between the parties over the passage and with the intervention of the respectables, a settlement was arrived at on 01.07.2004, but the defendants did not comply with the terms of the compromise. Plaintiff was forced to sign some papers under police pressure on 03.12.2004. He filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in terms of the compromise dated 01.07.2004 and for declaration to the effect that the compromise dated 03.12.2004 is illegal, null and void. In the alternative, he sought permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from using any portion of the private passage for the purpose of ingress and outgress. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written statement, wherein, besides raising various preliminary objections, a stand was taken that the defendants have an easementary right of way by way of prescription through the passage. Defendants claimed that they have been using the passage in dispute for going to and coming from their agricultural land for the last more than 40 years and that the plaintiff has no right title or interest in khasra No.25, which is in the exclusive ownership of the defendants. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendants and reasserted the pleas taken in the plaint. Following issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:-

“(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction prayed for? OPP (ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP (iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction prayed for? OPP (iv) Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (v) Whether suit in present form is not maintainable? OPD (vi) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD (vii) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD (viii) Whether the proper court fee has not been affixed? OPD (ix) Relief.”

3. Plaintiff stepped into the witness box as his own witness, as PW-1, and examined, Harjinder Pal and Ajmer Singh as PW-2 and PW-3, respectively, in his support. Defendants tendered copies of documents, Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 and closed his evidence. After contest, Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 20.11.2009 dismissed the suit. Plaintiff, preferred an appeal, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 06.03.2012. Trial Court judgment and decree was set aside and defendants were restrained from using any portion of the suit land as a passage for ingress and egress to their land. Defendants are in second appeal in the above backdrop.

4. As the dispute between the parties is regarding a passage, an attempt was made by this Court to resolve it through the medium of mediation, but it did not fructify.

5. Mr. I.S.Brar, counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants have been using the passage in disputes since time long past as an approach to their agricultural land and that they have an easementary r