Chain Singh and Others v. Swaran Lal and Another

IN T

Chain Singh and Swaran Lal and

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

appellants again Additional Distr decree dated 30 Brief Facts

2.

Bri suit for perman passage or rasta No. 171, Khatu Village Bhaini B that he along w Bimla Devi and said land. Acco THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da d Others

VERSUS Another

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Harminder Singh, Advocate fo r. Deepak Arora, Advocate for th -.-

ANNU,J. e present Regular Second Appea nst the judgment and decree date rict Judge, Fast Track Court, Gu .07.2009 of the learned trial Cou ief facts of the present case are th nent injunction restraining the a in the suit land measuring 7 Kan uni No. 295/1, Rectangle No. 2 Bangar, H.B No.530, Tehsil and with his co-sharers Kewal Krish d Smt. Laj Wanti was the owner ording to the plaintiff, the defe

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2972-2012 (O&M) served on:-09.09.2025 ate of Decision : 10.09.2025

....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU or the appellants. he respondents. al has been filed by the defendan ed 13.12.2011 passed by the learn urdaspur, whereby the judgment urt has been reversed. hat the plaintiff –Swaran Lal file defendants from carving out nals 7 Marlas comprised in Khew 24, Killa No. 12 (7-7) situated d District Gurdaspur. It was plead han, Ashok Kumar, Sawarno De and in cultivating possession of endants whose land abuts the

- nts– ned and ed a any wat d in ded evi, f the

property had no interfere in his p

3.

Up written stateme withdrawn. In t that the plaintiff admitted the ow karams wide on and further to th 254, Khatauni N Khatauni No. 6 passage was in and its demarca defendants plea demarcation pill

4.

De injunction direc as shown in blu use thereof.

5.

any such rasta. authorities and objections rega parties.

o right, title or interest therein, y possession and were adamant to on notice, defendants No. 1 to 4 nt, whereas the suit against d the written statement, the defend ff had not approached the Court wnership of the plaintiff but plea n the western side of the land in heir land. The passage, according No. 414, Rectangle No. 24, Kill 70, Rectangle No. 24, Killa No existence since consolidation, ation was carried out on 17.11.20 aded that after the said demarc lars and encroached upon the pas fendants No. 1 to 3 also filed a ting the plaintiff to remove the e ue colour in the site plan and to e plaintiff filed reply to the coun He denied that any demarcati also denied encroachment on a arding maintainability, limitatio

et they were threatening to forci carve out a passage. 4 contested the suit by way of jo defendant No. 5 was dismissed dants raised preliminary objecti t with clean hands. On merits, th aded that there exists a passage o dispute which leads to Ahata Ch g to them, runs through Khewat N la No. 9/1 (6-18), Khewat No. 4 o. 26 (1-2). It was asserted that t duly shown in the revenue reco 004 by the revenue authorities. T ation, the plaintiff demolished ssage. a counter-claim seeking mandat encroachment made on the pass restrain him from obstructing th nter-claim denying the existence on was conducted by the reven any passage. He raised prelimin on and non-joinder of necess

- ibly oint d as ons hey of 2 hah No. 407, this ord, tory age heir e of nue nary

6.

Fro

¶1pra

2.

¶3han

¶4inju

¶5form

6.

¶7par

8.

7.

Bawa Singh as P

8.

On Patwari as DW-himself as DW-Ex.D2, demarca Shajra Mark A. Finding of the t

9.

passage of 2 kar No. 26 and ther om the pleadings of the parties, th Whether the plaintiff is en ayed for? OPP Whether the suit is not maint Whether the plaintiff has n nds? If so, its effect? OPD Whether the defendants are unction on the ground mentioned Whether the counter claim m? OPD Whether the counter claim is Whether the counter claim i rties? OPP Relief. e plaintiff examined himself as P PW-3, and then closed his eviden n the other hand, the defendan -1, J.S. Dhanjal, Draftsman as D -3. They also tendered into evid ation report Ex.D3, Jamabandi E trial Court e learned trial Court, upon appre rams wide existed between Kha reafter to Ahata Chah, adjoining

he following issues were framed ntitled to permanent injunction tainable in the present form? OP not come to the court with cl entitled to the decree of mandat d in the counter claim? OPD is not maintainable in the pres s barred by time? OPD is bad for non-joinder of necess PW-1, Ravinder Singh as PW-2 nce. nts examined Ranjit Singh, Ha DW-2, and defendant Chain Sin ence Akash Sajra Ex. D1, site p Ex. D4 and Ex. D5, and Musavi/A eciation of the evidence, held th sra Nos. 11 and 12 leading to K g the land of the defendants. It w

- d: n as D lean tory sent sary and alqa ngh plan Aks at a Killa

further noticed passage leads up evidence, the tr proved, while th was, according defendants was Findings of the

10.

Lower Appellat plaintiff and his Jamabandi Ex. P the khasra nu consolidation, a duly entered in material on rec Consequently, th was decreed, an

11.

Ag defendants–appe

12.

their counsel to Submissions of

13.

Lea Appellate Court record. It was s that the plaintiff himself admi pto Killa No. 19. On the basis rial court concluded that the e he plaintiff failed to establish o gly, dismissed with costs, wh decreed and a decree sheet prepa e Lower Appellate Court e plaintiff preferred an appeal, w te Court on 13.12.2011. The App s co-sharers were proved to be in P1 and Khasra Girdawari Ex. P2 umber of the alleged passage all passages left for public use w the field book. Since the defen cord, the court held that no pa he judgment of the trial court w nd the counter claim of the defend grieved, the present Regular Se ellants. tice of the appeal was issued contest the same. f the learned counsel for the pa arned counsel for the appellan t erred in law by ignoring the d submitted that the dispute was

itted in cross-examination that of the oral as well as document existence of the passage was d otherwise. The suit of the plain hereas the counter claim of ared accordingly on 30.07.2009. which was accepted by the learn pellate Court held that although n joint possession of the land as 2, the defendants had failed to pr e. It was observed that dur were assigned khasra numbers ndants had failed to bring any su assage existed as alleged by the was set aside, the suit of the plain dants was dismissed. econd Appeal has been filed by and respondents appeared throu arties nts argued that the learned Low documentary and oral evidence never about the ownership of

- tary duly ntiff

ned per ove ring and uch em. ntiff ugh wer

plaintiff, which karams wide be evidence by exa Draftsman, and plan Ex.D2, de Musavi/Akash S and 12 leading material evidenc proved, despite and 20 and Kil document on the could always be

14.

On judgment of the through the suit later to carve ou passage. The co that there was n how they were pendency of the which the defen plan filed by the Findings of this

15.

I h the record. This was admitted, but only regardin etween Khasra Nos. 11 and 12 amining DW-1 Ranjit Singh, H DW-3 Chain Singh, who had du marcation report Ex.D3, Jamab Sajra Mark 'A' clearly showed th to Ahata Chah. The Appellate ce by observing that the khasra n Musavi showing khasra Nos. 2 lla Nos. 11/3 and 12. It was c e basis of which field book is pr e referred to for collateral purpos n the other hand, learned counse e learned Appellate Court and a t land. It was submitted that th ut a rasta and failed to produce ounter claim itself was self-contr o other passage except the dispu e approaching their land for t e litigation. It was further argued ndants were using, and no such em, which was vague and not con s Court have heard learned counsel for t s Court is of the considered view

ng the existence of the passage o

¶2The defendants had led cog Halqa Patwari, DW-2 J.S. Dhan uly proved Akash Sajra Ex. D1, bandi Ex.D4 and Ex. D5. Furth he passage between Killa Nos. 1 Court illegally brushed aside t number of the passage had not b 284 and 285 between Killa Nos. ontended that Musavi is the ba repared, and though not exhibited ses. l for the respondents supported argued that no passage ever exis he defendants fabricated docume any khasra number of such alle radictory, as the defendants plead uted one, but had not explained a the last several years during that there did exist another pass rasta existed as claimed in the nnected to the property in disput the parties and carefully examin w that the findings recorded by

- of 2 gent njal, site her, this een . 19 asic d, it sted ents ged ded s to age site te.

learned first app oral as well as d D2, demarcation existed between Ahata Chah. Th revenue authorit the said passag examination, ad Sajra produced passage.

16.

technical ground record relied up showed the exis the material fac three days of d shows the malaf

17.

On documentary an plaintiff was no defendants. The counter claim. T and assumption demarcation rep

pellate court are unsustainable. T documentary evidence including n report Ex. D3, clearly establis n Khasra Nos. 11 and 12 leadin he demarcation report dated 17. ties in the presence of the parties e and demarcated it on the spo dmitted that the passage leads up on record also shows khasra No e learned Appellate Court disc d that khasra number was not m pon by the defendants includin stence of passage. The learned A ct that the present suit was filed demarcation of land which was fide on the part of plaintiff. nce the existence of passage nd oral evidence, supported by of ot entitled to injunction agains e trial court had rightly dismissed The findings of the first appellat ns while ignoring cogent doc port, cannot be sustained.

The trial court had, on the basis g Akash Sajra Ex. D1, site plan shed that a passage 2 karams w ng to Killa No. 26 and thereafter

11.2004 (Ex. D3), prepared by s, specifically recorded existence ot. The plaintiff himself, in cro to Killa No. 19. The Musavi/Ak os. 284, 285 and 286 earmarked carded this evidence on a hyp mentioned, whereas the very reven ng the demarcation report clea Appellate Court further overlook d on 20.11.2004 immediately a s conducted on 17.11.2004 wh e stood established by relia fficial demarcation proceedings, st the rightful use thereof by d the plaintiff's suit and decreed e court, being based on conjectu cumentary evidence including

- s of Ex. wide r to e of oss-kash d as per-nue arly ked after hich able

Conclusion:

18.

In

13.12.2011 pas Gurdaspur, is se learned trial C dismissed with Decree sheet be

19.

20.

Pen

September 10, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh view of the foregoing discussio sed by the learned Additional et aside. The judgment and decr Court is restored. Accordingly, costs, while the counter claim prepared accordingly. e present Regular Second Appea nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

on, the judgment and decree da District Judge, Fast Track Co ree dated 30.07.2009 passed by , the suit of the plaintiff sta of the defendants stands decre al is allowed in the afore-said term stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- ated ourt, ands eed.