##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

Reserved on:-12.12.2025 Pronounced on:- 19.12.2025 Uploaded on:-22.12.2025 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment

1. RSA-3687-2025 (O&M)

Sahib Ram Sehrawat and Another ....Appellants VERSUS Charan Singh and Others ....Respondents

2. RSA-3405-2025 (O&M)

Charan Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Sahib Ram Sehrawat and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Anil Bidhan, Advocate for the appellants (in RSA-3687-2025).

for respondents No.1 and 2 (in RSA-3405-2025)

Mr. Anshul Mangla, Advocate for the appellants (in RSA-3405-2025).

for respondent No.1(in RSA-3687-2025).

Service upon respondents No.2 and 3 (in RSA-3687-2025) Service upon respondents No.3 and 4 (in RSA-3405-2025)

dispensed with vide order dated 05.12.2025.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. Both the present Regular Second Appeals arise out of the same judgment and decree dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was partly decreed. The plaintiff has preferred one Regular Second Appeal contending that the learned Lower Appellate Court erred in declining the relief of declaration of prescriptive easement of right of way and that the suit ought to have been decreed in toto. On the other hand, the defendant has preferred the connected Regular Second Appeal asserting that the learned Lower Appellate Court committed a grave illegality in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court and that the suit of the plaintiff deserved to be dismissed in entirety, as was done by the Trial Court. Since both the appeals emanate from the same judgment and involve common questions of law and facts, they are being decided together by this common judgment.

Brief Facts

2. The case has its genesis in the ownership of land situated in the revenue estate of village Sukhrali, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. Late Sh. Mulk Raj Anand had purchased the land comprised in Rect. No. 22 and Rect. No. 11 through a registered sale deed dated 12.03.1964 and thereafter constructed his residential house along with garage and servant quarters in the year 1964. At that time, he was the owner of both the dominant land as well as the adjoining land, which subsequently came to be described as the servient land. The remaining land was left open and was being used as a driveway providing access to the main public highway.

3. On 24.09.1964, an exchange deed was executed, and due to an error therein, the description of one killa number was wrongly recorded, though the actual ownership and possession continued with Sh. Mulk Raj Anand. Subsequently, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued in respect of part of the land, though the said land was later released from acquisition in the year 1982. After the release, Sh. Mulk Raj Anand constructed a house known as “Dorset Cottage” and in the year 1984 executed a registered gift deed dated 11.07.1984 in favour of the plaintiffs, thereby gifting them land measuring about 2 kanals 16 marlas. In the said gift deed, an express easement of a 15 feet wide passage was granted in favour of the plaintiffs over the western side of the retained land for access to the main road through Gate ‘X’ and Gate ‘Y’.

4. It was pleaded that since 1964, sewerage lines and water supply pipelines had been laid beneath the servient land and were continuously used for the benefit of the dominant land. The plaintiffs continued to use the 15 feet wide passage openly, peacefully and as of right. Additionally, they claimed to be using another passage measuring about 7 meters wide through Gate ‘Y’ over the servient land for access to the main highway. In the year 1997, notices were issued by HUDA alleging unauthorized occupation, pursuant to which certain structures were demolished, but later reconstructed after verification of documents and