OF PUNJAB AND H D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Parminder Sin r Singh gh Balbir v. M) RSA No
Case Details
RSA No. 176 o 76 of 1998 IN THE H HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Parminder Sin r Singh gh Balbir Singh Versus M) RSA No. 176 of 1998 (O&M) 25 Reserved on: 22.09.2025 25 Pronounced on:24.09.2025 nt …Appellant nt …Respondent CORAM: HON ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPT UPTA Argued by:- M Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advocate For the appellant. Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate For the respondent. ***** DEEPAK GUPT UPTA, J.
Legal Reasoning
Plaintiff of the case is before thi lar this Court in the present regular second appeal peal against the concurrent findings ch ings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for perm permanent injunction filed by him w urt im was dismissed by the trial Court on 25.01.1996 1996 and the appeal filed by him irst him was dismissed by the First Appellate Cour Court on 22.12.1997, thus affirming t ing the findings of the trial Court. 2. According to plaintiff, defendant h nd ant had sold 8 Kanal 10 Marla land out of total lan l land of 16 Kanal comprised in Khas ale hasra No. 24/15/6 by virtue of sale deed dated 12 d 12.06.1978 preceded by an agree 78 greement to sell dated 05.05.1978 and had also p so provided a 20 feet wide passage f ale ge from the eastern side. The sale deed was exe executed in favour of the father o ce er of the plaintiff, who had since expired. It wa was alleged that after purchase, t ad se, the father of the plaintiff had raised bounda ndary wall on it and put two gates a in tes at point A1 and A2 as shown in the site plan b an but defendant had encroached up ad d upon the passage, which he had agreed to prov provide as per the sale deed. With th ed h these allegations, plaintiff prayed for a decree o ee of permanent injunction to restra ing estrain the defendant from closing the disputed ed passage as described in the he for e head of the plaint and also for mandatory inju injunction to direct him to demo ed emolish the boundary wall raised thereon. JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.24 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of 3 Page ages RSA No. 176 o 76 of 1998 3. Contesting the suit, defendant did ale t did not deny execution of the sale deed in respe spect of 8 Kanal 10 Marla land to ut to the father of the plaintiff but maintained tha d that he had agreed to provide pass to assage from the eastern side up to the point, whe where the sold area started and not by not up to the end as is alleged by the plaintiff. 4. Necessary issues were framed. Ev ies . Evidence produced by the parties was taken on on record. After considering the sa tiff e sale deed relied by the plaintiff (Mark A), the the trial Court dismissed the sui no suit holding that there was no encroachment ent and that passage had been prov he provided as per the contents of the sale deed. The The Appellate Court affirmed the find findings. 5. Assailing the concurrent findings ed ings, it is contended by learned counsel for the r the plaintiff-appellant that an appli 27 pplication under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC had been een moved before the First Appellat ce ellate Court for additional evidence but the same ame was considered and therefore be fore, the matter deserves to be remitted. 6. The photocopy of trial Court recor l of ecord was called and the perusal of the file of the the Appellate Court would reveal t er eal that no such application under Order XLI, Ru , Rule 27 CPC was ever moved b he d by the plaintiff-appellant. The photocopy of t of the file was even handed over to
Legal Reasoning
t in r to the counsel for the appellant in order to show how as to whether any such appli or pplication is there on the file, or whether there here is any reference of any such a ni ch application in any of the zimni orders passed sed by the Appellate Court and he co ch e conceded that there was no such application. In . In the circumstances, the content he tention of learned counsel for the appellant is fou is found to be factually incorrect. 7. Considering the matter on merits, ate rits, it is found that First Appellate Court while de e declining the appeal of the appella he ellant observed in para No.8 of the judgment as un as under:- “The ple plea taken up by the appellant is be is that passage was agreed to be provided vided till the last and [end]of the sold a m old area and not upto the point from where t re the sold area started. But in my ny my view, this plea is without any substanc tance and cannot be accepted. A bare of are perusal of the sale deed, copy of which is h is Mark A, which has been produced wn uced not by the appellant in his own statemen ment, but by Ramesh Pal PW2 Asstt. o ws stt. of Bhatia Electronics Store, shows JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.24 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of 3 Page ages RSA No. 176 o 76 of 1998 that the the respondent agreed to provide 20 fe ide 20 feet passage from the eastern side to the a he area sold by him to Gajinder Sing his Singh, father of the appellant. This passage age had been provided by him. It is diff he difficult to interpret the terms of the sale dee deed as suggested by the learned co he d counsel for the appellant that the passage age was to be extended till the last e nly st end of the sold area and not only upto the the point from where the sold area lan rea started. The perusal of the plan Ex.P1 al 1 also shows that passage of 20 f he 0 feet had been provided by the responde ondent upto the starting point of the so nt he sold area and gate of the appellant on that p hat point also exists. The appellant now be ow wants that this passage should be extended nded beyond that gate and should go u his go upto the points A and B, where his plot end ends. But his claim is beyond the term he erms of the sale deed vide which the responde ondent sold the land to his father Gajin nly ajinder Singh. The respondent is only under th r the legal obligation as per the terms ft. rms of the sale deed to provide 20 ft. passage age only to the area which is sold he old to Gajinder Singh father of the appellan llant. He never agreed that this passag er ssage would extend to the last corner of the so e sold area, where appellant had show in shown gates in the points A and B in the plan plan Ex.P1 of his own, illegally. He ca at e cannot be legally allowed to that nt.” extent.” 8. It is clear from the aforesaid obse nt bservations that no encroachment was found to to be made by the respondent-def ich defendant on the passage, which goes up to the the point from where the purchased tiff ased area of the appellant-plaintiff starts and as s as such, the Appellate Court rightly h ot tly held that the appellant was not entitled to any any permanent injunction as was c ing as claimed by him, while affirming the findings of s of the trial Court. 9. This Court does not find any gro he ground whatsoever to disturb the concurrent find t findings of facts as recorded by the nd the Courts below, which are found to be based up d upon proper appreciation of evide ing vidence on record. As such holding the present ap t appeal to be devoid of merit, same me is hereby dismissed. 24.09.2025 Jiten (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.24 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 3 of 3 Page ages