IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.04.2026 Gian Chand ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Malkiat Singh and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts, whereby the suit filed by the appellant for permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the present suit for grant of decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the rasta/road marked as letters A and B in the Site Plan. It was the pleaded that plaintiff is owner of the agricultural land as mentioned in Akshajra, and he is in cultivating possession of the same. It is averred that plaintiff is using rasta Mark A and mark B for ingress and outgress from his agricultural land. However, defendants are obstructing the appellant’s ingress and outgress by parking their tractor trolley at the spot. Defendants have also threatened to raise construction over the passage in dispute. Hence, present suit was filed on 01.07.2014.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 23.05.2017. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated

17.10.2022. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff.

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned District Courts were in error in non-suiting the appellant as even from the site plan produced by the defendants, as well as the other oral evidence produced by the defendant, it becomes clear that it is the plaintiff/appellant who is using the portion of the road to ingress, as well as the Phirni for ingress and outgress to his fields, and the defendants have no concern with the land lying across the Phirni.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the finding on issue No.1 by the courts below is totally against the facts and law and are liable to be set-aside, as the Plaintiff admittedly is the owner in possession of the agricultural land and the Khasra no. 14//1/1 and 14//12/1/2 are abutting/ touching the road "Nagla-Sahabpura Road" and the law is well settled by now that a person whose property abuts/falls and have the front of road, street or any passage in front of his property, such person is legally entitled to use the said front for the purpose of ingress and outgress and even opening the door and is also entitled to use the same for his subservient rights appurtenant to his property and this aspect of the law and right of the plaintiff have been fully failed to be appreciated by the Ld.

Courts below. Despite the admission of the very important fact that the Appellant/plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the land which includes Khasra no. 14//11/1 and 14//12/1/2 since the time of consolidation and the said Khasra no. abuts and touches the nagla- Sahabpura Road which fully proves the case of the plaintiff. It is submitted that while deciding the issue no. 1, the Learned Courts below further failed to appreciate the nature of the documentary evidence coming from the Revenue record i.e. Aksh-Sajra which is pubic document and is per se admissible being the public document i.e. Aksh-Sajra (Ex. P-1). Whereas on the other hand the site plan Ex. D-1 admittedly prepared on the direction of the respondent/Defendants which has no legal sanctity as compared to the Ex. P-1, have been illegally and erroneously allowed to sit over the public document which, consequently, caused a great prejudice to the Appellant/plaintiff.

6. It is contended that therefore, the findings of the learned District Courts are perverse and contrary to the e