O&M) Prem Chand and others v. Jagmal Singh and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: September 09, 2025 Pronounced on: September 19, 2025 CM-6573-C-2025 in/and RSA No.1867 of 2025 (O&M) Prem Chand and others . . . . Appellants Vs. Jagmal Singh and others . . . . Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by :- Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Present at the =me of pronouncement :- None. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. CM-6573-C-2025 This is an applica(cid:31)on under Sec(cid:31)on 5 of the Limita(cid:31)on Act to condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons as men(cid:31)oned in the applica(cid:31)on, supported by an affidavit of one of the appellants, delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Decision
The applica(cid:31)on stands disposed of. RSA No.1867 of 2025 (O&M) Four out of seven defendants of the case are before this Court in the present regular second appeal, assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit filed by plain(cid:31)ffs – Jagmal Singh and others (contes(cid:7)ng respondents herein) seeking decree of permanent injunc(cid:31)on regarding property in dispute, was partly decreed by the trial Court on 19.11.2018, and the appeal filed by five of the defendants including the present appellants, was dismissed by the First Appellate Court of learned Sarita Rani 2025.09.19 14:16 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.1867 of 2025 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 129938 Addl. District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri on 17.01.2025, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has been heard and the record perused. 3. The dispute pertains to alleged encroachment made by the defendants upon some of the property belonging to the plain(cid:31)ffs, and also the common blind street (kutcha bandh) exis(cid:31)ng between the houses of two par(cid:31)es. 4. According to the plain(cid:31)ffs, they are owners of the house situated in village Alahar, with its courtyard shown by le:ers ‘EFCD’in the annexed site plan. In the eastern side of the said courtyard, there exists a common kutcha bandh (blind street) shown by le:ers ‘DCBA’ and in further East exists the house of the defendants. The common blind street is being used by both the par(cid:31)es since the (cid:31)me of their ancestors. It was pleaded that father of the defendants had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunc(cid:31)on in respect of his house and the firni situated in the East of his house, wherein kutcha bandh was shown to exist on the West of his house. In that case, the father of the defendants had pleaded the dimensions of his house to be 60’ each on the eastern & western sides and 42’ each on the northern and southern sides. That suit was decreed and the judgment had a:ained finality. The plain(cid:31)ffs alleged further that in January, 2014, with a malafide inten(cid:31)on, defendants constructed two rooms as shown by le:ers ‘GHBK’ covering the part of the courtyard of the plain(cid:31)ffs as well as the common kutcha bandh (passage). Request made by the plain(cid:31)ffs to the defendants to remove the said construc(cid:31)on and hand over the vacant possession of the por(cid:31)on of ‘GHCJ’ in the site plan went unheeded and so, the plain(cid:31)ffs brought the suit seeking decree for possessions besides mesne profits @ ₹40/- per day. 5. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the wri:en statement claimed that suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, as boundaries of the house of the par(cid:31)es have already been decided in the earlier suit. It was claimed that property shown by le:ers ‘GHBK’ belongs to the defendants since (cid:31)me Sarita Rani 2025.09.19 14:16 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 2 of 4 RSA No.1867 of 2025 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 129938 immemorial, with which plain(cid:31)ffs have no concern. Prayer was accordingly made for dismissal of the suit. The other defendants did not contest the suit. 6. AJer framing issues and taking evidence, the trial Court partly decreed the suit and ordered the defendants to remove the construc(cid:31)on from the por(cid:31)on shown by le:ers ‘GHJCKB’and ‘LMAN’ in the site plan by way of judgment dated 19.11.2018. On the appeal filed by the defendants, the First Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence and dismissed the appeal. 7. Assailing the concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in correct prospec(cid:31)ve. 8. The First Appellate Court while re-apprecia(cid:31)ng the evidence on record, has observed as under:- “11. A careful reading of the site plan Ex. P1 in conjunc(cid:31)on with the judgment and decree in the earlier suit Ex. P2 & Ex. P3 clearly shows that there was land of Jasmer Singh in North; common street in South; Phirni in East; and Kutcha Bandh in West of house of the defendants measuring 60' x 42'. The said dimensions clearly tally with the site plan Ex. P1 relied upon by the plain(cid:31)ffs/respondents. No site plan has been brought on record by the defendants during trial. However, at the (cid:31)me of arguments, a site plan has been placed on record seeking permission to lead the said site plan in evidence. However, a perusal of the said site plan shows that house of the defendants has been expanded to 61' in the North and 78' in the South instead of 42' in the North and South, to include the construc(cid:31)on made by the defendant. Thus just to jus(cid:31)fy the encroachment made by them into their own land, the width of the Kutcha Bandh (blind street) has been reduced to 5' has instead of 10', as reflected in the site plan Ex. P1. Thus, the said site plan cannot be relied upon, since the dimensions of the house of the defendants as per their own claim is 60' x 42', as per Ex. P2 and Ex. P3. 12. Even otherwise, a perusal of the cross-examina(cid:31)on of defendant, Som Parkash, appearing as DW1 would show that he admi:ed that the house of Balbir, Vinod and Prem is situated towards East of the Kutcha Sarita Rani 2025.09.19 14:16 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 3 of 4 RSA No.1867 of 2025 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 129938 Bandh. He nowhere claimed any land in west of the Kutcha Bandh. However, he did not deny that in the earlier suit, the dimensions of their house was se:led as 60' x 42', as per their own claim. Rather, he pleaded ignorance about the same. Thus, I am of the considered view that the learned trial court has rightly believed the claim of the plain(cid:31)ffs regarding encroachment on the Kutcha Bandh and ordered the defendants to remove the said encroachment from the por(cid:31)on shown by le:ers GHJCKB and LMAN in the site plan. 13. So far as the claim of the plain(cid:31)ffs regarding possession of the part of the court-yard of their house, shown by le:ers EFGHJD in the site plan as well as mesne profits for its illegal use and occupa(cid:31)on by the defendants, is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that the por(cid:31)on shown by le:ers EFGHJD in the site plan Ex. P1, is a part of the court-yard of house of the plain(cid:31)ffs or owned by them. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence on the file to prove the ownership of the plain(cid:31)ffs with regard to the por(cid:31)on shown by le:ers EFGHJD in the site plan Ex. P1, it cannot be held that the plain(cid:31)ffs are en(cid:31)tled to the possession of that property or to claim mesne profits for its illegal use and occupa(cid:31)on by the defendants, as has rightly been observed by the learned trial court. Hence, there being no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the same deserves to be affirmed.” 9. The findings recorded by the trial Court and as affirmed by the First Appellate Court, are purely the findings of facts. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any material irregularity or illegality in the aforesaid findings while apprecia(cid:31)ng the evidence, or any evidence which was not taken into considera(cid:31)on. As such, this Court does not find any ground whatsoever to disturb the concurrent findings of facts, which are found to be based upon proper apprecia(cid:31)on of evidence on record. As such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. September 19, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.09.19 14:16 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 4 of 4