RSA 1431/2015 (O&M)

1

103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA 1431/2015 (O&M)

Date of decision:13.12.2017

Amrik Singh and another

..............Appellants

v.

Shabeg Singh

..............Respondent

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh

Present:-

Mr.OP Hoshiarpuri,Advocate for the appellants.

Jaswant Singh,J,(Oral).

Plaintiffs/appellants are in second appeal against concurrent

findings returned by both the Courts below whereby their suit for permanent

injunction was dismissed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)Ferozepur vide

judgment and decree dated 11.12.2012 and findings thereof affirmed in

appeal by learned District Judge,Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated

9.12.2014.

Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the

defendant/respondent from interfering in their possession over the suit land

measuring 23 kanals 8 marlas comprised in Khasra No.16 Killa No.2(8-0)3

(7-8), 4(8-0), situated in the area of Village Peer Ismail Khan Wala, Tehsil

and Distt.Ferozepur. As per case set up by the plaintiffs they were owners in

possession of the suit land i.e. while plaintiff no.1 claimed to be owner to

the extent of 320/480 share, plaintiff no.2 claimed to be owner to the extent

of 160/480 share in the suit land. It was further alleged that though there

was no passage in the suit land but defendant was threatening to interfere in

Rajinder Parshad Joshi

2017.12.13 17:37

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA 1431/2015 (O&M)

2

103

the possession of the plaintiffs so as to forcibly pass through it.

Upon notice,defendant filed written statement alleging therein

that there existed a passage in khasra no.58 and defendant alongwith others

were using the same for the last so many years and that plaintiffs wanted to

forcibly encroach upon the said passage. Defendant also filed an application

for demarcation. Pursuant to the said application, Revenue Officials visited

the spot and a demarcation was carried out whereupon it was found that a

passage still existed at the spot in khasra no.58 adjoining the land of

plaintiffs.

On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Both sides

led evidence in support of their respective pleas. The Courts below, on the

basis of evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the suit as noticed

hereinabove. Hence the present appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants and with his

able assistance perused the paper book carefully.

On the basis of evidence adduced during trial it has been found

that undoubtedly plaintiffs are owners of the suit property comprised in

Khasra No.16 and adjoining the suit property there exists a passage in

khasra no.58. PW3 Surinder Mehrok,Advocate, who was appointed as Local

Commissioner in his cross examination stated that the land of plaintiffs

adjoins khasra no.58 and at the time of his visit Khasra no.58 (passage) was

being cultivated by the plaintiffs who had sown wheat crop in the passage in

dispute. Further, plaintiff no.1 during his cross examination testified that he

had got no apprehension from defendant to forcibly occupy his land. Thus,

it was rightly held that in the garb of suit for permanent injunction, plaintiffs

wanted to encroach upon the passage existing in Khasra no.58. In these

Rajinder Parshad Joshi

2017.12.13 17:37

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA 1431/2015 (O&M)

3

103

circumstance the equitable relief of permanent injunction has rightly been

declined by the Courts below.

In view of the above, no question of law much less substantial

question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.

Dismissed.

13.12.2017

(Jaswant Singh)

joshi

Judge

Whether

Speaking/reasoned

Yes/No

Whether Reportable

Yes/No

Rajinder Parshad Joshi

2017.12.13 17:37

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document