Advocates:
['R S SIHOTA', 'C B GOEL', 'L N JINDAL', '']

Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points:

• Case Details: The case is Karnail Singh vs. Jaimal Singh, RSA No. 2950/1985, decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 04-05-2011 (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Procedural History: The appeal was filed by the plaintiffs (Appellants) against a judgment and decree dated 27.09.1985 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, which had dismissed their suit (!) (!) (!) . The second appeal was admitted on 02.1986 (!) .
• Nature of the Suit: The plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from forcibly passing through a specific passage marked in red on the site plan (Ex.P1) (!) (!) (!) .
• Plaintiffs' Claim: The plaintiffs alleged that their predecessors-in-interest created a private passage in their own land (Khasra Nos. 16, 25, 5/2, and 6) and that the defendant had no right, title, or interest to pass through it (!) (!) (!) .
• Defendant's Defense: The defendant contested the suit, claiming the disputed property was a public park/shamilat land vested in the Gram Panchayat, reserved during consolidation proceedings (!) (!) .
• Issues Framed: The trial court framed issues regarding exclusive possession, locus standi, maintainability, jurisdiction, and multifariousness (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Trial Court Decision: The trial court decided Issue No. 1 partly in favor of the plaintiffs, holding them to be in illegal possession, and decreed the suit by restraining the defendant from passing through except in due course of law (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• First Appeal: The defendant appealed to the Additional District Judge, which was allowed, and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed (!) (!) (!) .
• Arguments in Second Appeal: The appellants argued that possession alone entitles a plaintiff to an injunction and that the lower appellate court's judgment was perverse (!) (!) (!) (!) . The respondent argued that no substantial question of law arose and the lower court's judgment was well-reasoned (!) (!) (!) .
• Court's Findings on Facts: The court examined Ex.P3 (Jamabandi) and Ex.P2 (Akash Sajra), concluding that the passage (Mark 'A' to 'A') was a public passage, three-karam wide, and not a private passage carved out of the plaintiffs' land (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Legal Principle Applied: The court held that since the passage was public, everyone has a right to use it, and a person in illegal possession of a public passage has no right to seek an equitable relief of injunction against the true owners or other citizens with legal rights (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Final Decision: The court found no substantial question of law arising and declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Consequently, the regular second appeal was dismissed (!) (!) (!) (!) .

RSA No.2950 of 1985 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA No.2950 of 1985 (O&M)

Date of decision 04.05.2011

Karnail Singh and others

…Appellants

Versus

Jaimal Singh

…Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present :

Shri Nitin Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

1.

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment

and decree dated 27.09.1985, passed by the learned Additional District

Judge, Karnal, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

2.

In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the civil

suit No.714 of 1982, seeking decree for permanent injunction and

restraining Jaimal Singh, the defendant, from forcibly passing through the

passage shown in red colour in the site-plan, Ex.P1. It is alleged in the

plaint that the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs made a private

passage in their own land in Khasra No.16, 25, 5/2 and 6. The defendant

earlier used to go to his field from Khasra Nos.17, 18 and 19, which abuts

RSA No.2950 of 1985 (O&M)

-2-

the main road. After selling his land to Chattar Singh, the defendant started

passing through the above said khasra numbers, without any right, title or

interest, which is exclusively owned by the plaintiffs. It is alleged that the

defendant has threatened to pass through Khasra No.15/2 in order to reach

Khasra No.17/1 and his adjoining land.

3.

The defendant contested the suit that the disputed property is a

public park and vests in the Gram Panchayat being shamilat land, which was

reserved during consolidation proceedings.

4.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

framed:-

1.

Whether the passage shown as red in the site plan is

exclusively used and possessed by the plaintiff ? OPP

2.

Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the

present suit ? OPD

3.

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?

OPD

4.

Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and

try the present suit ? OPD.

5.

Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness ? OPD.

6.

Relief.

5.

The learned trial Court decided Issue No.1 partly in favour of

the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs were in illegal possession of the suit

property comprising the passage. Issue Nos.2 and 3 were decided in favour

of the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the

plaintiffs are proved to be in possession of the suit property and the

defendant was restrained from forcibly passing through the passage except

RSA No.2950 of 1985 (O&M)

-3-

in due course of law. Against this impugned judgment and decree dated

18.04.1983, Jaimal Singh, defendant, filed an appeal before the learned

Additional District Judge, Karnal, which was allowed and the suit of the

plaintiffs was dismissed. Against this judgment and decree of the learned

Additional District Judge, Karnal dated 27.09.1985, the plaintiffs filed this

Regular Second Appeal No.2950 of 1985 which was admitted on

18.02.1986.

6.

Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants

submits that it has been admitted by the respondent in his statement as DW1

that the respondents cultivated the land in dispute and the learned trial Court

was right in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction. The learned

counsel further submits that for the sake of arguments, even if it is admitted

that the plaintiffs are trespassers, even then, they cannot be dispossessed

from the suit land, except in due course of law. The learned counsel further

argued that even the defendant-respondent admitted that it is a public path

and vests in the Panchayat being shamilat deh, but no documentary evidence

is forthcoming to prove that the land in question vests in the Gram

Panchayat and is shamilat deh land.

7.

The