IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.10.2025 Yunush @ Yonush Salim ...Appellant Versus Mohar Khan and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the suit for permanent injunc7on filed by the plain7ff – Mohar Khan (contes7ng respondent herein) was decreed by the learned Trial Court on 10.01.2020, and the appeal preferred by defendant No.2 – Yunush (appellant herein) was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated

03.07.2024.

2. Facts of the Case : The case of the plain7ff is that he is owner in possession of a house marked by le?ers ‘AGDEF’ in the site plan (Ex. P-9) situated in Abadi Deh of village Khedla, Tehsil and District Nuh. Towards the eastern side of the house lies a common street being used by both par7es for ingress and egress. The drainage and sewer pipelines of the plain7ff pass through this street. It was alleged that the defendants constructed a water tank in the said street and had started collec7ng building material with an inten7on to encroach upon the common passage. Hence, the suit for permanent injunc7on was filed to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plain7ff’s rights over the common street.

3. The defendants contested the suit by dispu7ng the correctness of the site plan and asser7ng that the disputed por7on was not a common street, but rather the personal property of defendant No.1 (Habib). It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 had sold the property to the wife of defendant No.2 (appellant) and that the house of the plain7ff was limited to the por7on marked ‘GHJI’, having no concern with the disputed passage. 4. Findings of the Courts Below : The Trial Court, aHer framing the necessary issues and apprecia7ng the evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plain7ff on 10.01.2020. The First Appellate Court, upon reappraisal of the evidence, affirmed those findings and dismissed the appeal of the defendant on 03.07.2024.

5. The First Appellate Court, while dealing with the rival conten7ons, made the following material observa7ons:

(cid:1) From the discussion of the evidence of the par7es, it is clear that none produced any ownership document for the suit property. However, from the admission of defendant No.2 during cross- examina7on, it is proved that the gate of the plain7ff’s house opens towards the suit property.

(cid:1) The plain7ff relied upon site plans Ex.P1 (from the earlier case Mohar Khan v. Isha Khan, decided on 12.11.1994), Ex.P9, and Ex.P10—all depic7ng a common passage between the houses of Hazi Atru and Habib Khan (defendant No.1).

(cid:1) PW-4 Hasim Ali deposed that he had seen the disputed passage since his childhood. Conversely, the defendants produced no document showing ownership of the passage. Defendant No.2 admi?ed that waste water outlet of Hazi Atru opens into the disputed land.

(cid:1) DW-1 Hasin Ahmad, the draHsman who prepared Ex.D1, admi?ed during cross-examina7on that he neither called the plain7ff nor Hazi Atru at the 7me of inspec7on and had omi?ed to show the iron gate of the plain7ff’s house on the eastern side. Hence, Ex.D1 was held unreliable.

(cid:1) Accordingly, it was held that the land in dispute is not the personal property of the defendants and must be presumed to be a common passage, over which the defendants have no right to encroach.

6. Considera4on by this Court : The findings recorded by both the Courts below are based upon proper apprecia7on of oral and documentary evidence. The concurrent conclusion that the disputed land cons7tutes a common passage is supported by consistent documentary proof, admissions of the defendants, and credible witness tes7mony.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality, perversity, or misreading of evi