IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3407-1998 Reserved on: 19.09.2025 Pronounced on: 24.09.2025 RAM KISHAN ....Appellant Versus PADAM SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Anuj Tanwar, Advocate for Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

Parmod Goyal, J.

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant No.1 who is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.07.1997, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani and judgment and decree dated 18.05.1998, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, vide which suit preferred by plaintiffs/respondents for permanent injunction was allowed by restraining defendants from making any encroachment on the part of street shown in yellow colour on the site plan attached with the suit. First appeal preferred by appellant, was also dismissed.

2. In their suit for permanent injunction, plaintiffs/respondents had asserted that a public street shown in yellow and red colour in the site plan abuts the plot of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2. The suit property was stated to be located in the area known as Jituwala Johar, Dinod Road, Bhiwani. That the said public street is being used as such from time immemorial and house of defendant No.1 abuts the street on both sides as shown in the site plan Ex.P1. It was the case of plaintiffs that defendants with mala fide intentions are trying to encroach upon some portion of the passage which is shown in red colour with letters ABCD which exist in between the house of defendant No.1 Ram Kishan. That defendants are adamant to block the passage by raising construction and by merging the disputed passage with the property of defendant No.1. Despite repeated requests defendants are insisting to make encroachment and raise construction.

3. On notice defendants No.2 and 3 admitted the disputed portion marked with letters ABCD to be part of public passage, however, denied the fact that they are making any effort to encroach upon public street. Defendant No.1 however, contested the suit by taking number of preliminary objections regarding estoppel by act and conduct, non-joinder of necessary parties, lack of cause of action and non-affixation of ad valorem Court fee. On merits it was asserted that the portion covered by letters ABCDEFGH was purchased by defendants vide two different sale deeds dated 21.08.1969 and 07.04.1979. It is asserted that there is a street in the southern direction of house of plaintiffs which leads to kacha road from Village Dinod, Jeetuwala Johr and railway crossing and the gate of house of defendant No.1 also opens in the street. Defendant No.1 claimed portion marked by letters ABCD to be owned by him. Defendant No.1 accordingly prayed for dismissal of suit.

4. From the pleadings of parties following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the suit property is a public passage as alleged if so to what effect? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD

4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

5. Whether the suit is false, frevolous and vexatious to his knowledge if so what effect? OPD

6. Relief.

5. Both the Courts have concurrently found that portion ABCD claimed to be public street by plaintiffs indeed is a public street and defendants are trying to encroach upon the same. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by learned Courts below is being challenged before this Court. It is worth noticing that both the Courts below have duly noticed that defendants are claiming their right over the suit property on the basis of two sale deeds Ex.DW1/B and DW1/C and are asserting that disputed area being stated as public street is actually owned by them. It has been further noticed by both the Co