IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2044-1993 (O/M)

Reserved on : 16.12.2024 Date of decision : 12.03.2025 Nirmal Singh ...... Appellant Versus Lakshmi Devi through her LRs ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :- Ms. Armaan Saggar, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Arpan Sabharwal, Advocate for LR (ii) of respondent.

-.- -.-

HARSH BUNGER, J.

1. For convenience, the parties herein are being addressed as per their status in the original suit.

2. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by defendant (Nirmal Singh) against judgment and decree dated 20.04.1993, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby he has set aside judgment and decree dated 15.02.1991, passed by learned Sub Judge First Class, Ludhiana and has decreed the suit of the plaintiff (present respondent) for mandatory injunction with a further direction to demolish the construction raised by defendant (Nirmal Singh) on the disputed site and restore the same as a street. Another direction has been issued for restraining the defendant (Nirmal Singh) from making any construction or encroachment on the disputed street, otherwise than in due course of law. Vide the same judgment dated 20.04.1993, learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana has also dismissed the cross objections filed by defendant (Nirmal Singh).

2. Briefly, plaintiff (Lakshmi Devi) filed a suit against defendant (Nirmal Singh), seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant (Nirmal Singh) from raising any construction on the street, as described in the plaint on the plea that she owns House No. B-XVII-1945 and on the southern side of the said house, there is a street, in which three doors, three windows and three ventilators of the plaintiff open. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that she had purchased the land, on which the house is constructed, from Khushi Ram and others, who had purchased the same from one Sant Singh etc. and the aforesaid street was in existence, since that time. It was alleged that on 14.10.1987, defendant alongwith some other persons came to the disputed street, collected building material there and threatened to raise construction on the disputed street. Accordingly, the suit was filed.

2.1 Upon notice, defendant appeared in the suit and contested the claim of plaintiff by filing his written statement, inter alia, on the plea that there was no street, rather there is a house of defendant, which has been wrongly described by plaintiff as a street. It was stated that the doors, windows and ventilators of the plaintiff open towards the house of defendant and that there is a boundary wall and house, which already stand constructed and, therefore, there was no question of raising any construction. It was further stated that the plaintiff has not described the boundary wall of the street in dispute correctly. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.

2.2 From the pleading of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

“1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP

2) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

3) Relief.”

2.3 The parties led their respective evidence in support of their respective claims. The concerned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 15.02.1991, dismissed the suit of plaintiff by holding as under :-

“10) Admittedly there is street on Eastern side of the house of plaintiff as well as the property in dispute. The allegations of the plaintiff are that towards Southern side of his house there is also street. Undisputedly the doors, windows and ventilators of the plaintiff open in the site in dispute and the Local Commissioner also found that doors, windows and ventilators of the plaintiff open towards the house of the defendant. The plaintiff has purchased his house from Khushi Ram vide sale deed dated 8.8.1961. Khushi Ram has purchased this property from Sant Singh and others vide sale deed dated 5.6.19