High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
Page 1 of 8 8 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 Jaskaran Sin Singh Singh Gurdev Singh RSA-5614-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.01.2025 Vs. ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- ate Mr. B.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the appellant. *** NIDHI GUPTA UPTA, J. The defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decree passed b ed by the learned Courts below whereby the t suit t for permanent injunction filed by the respondent/ ent/plaintiff has been decreed. 2. The respondent/plaintiff h iff had filed a suit for permanent injunction r n restraining the defendant fro from installing/opening gate towards the
Legal Reasoning
the private street of the plaintiff wh f which leads to the house of the plaintiff show shown in the site plan as ABCD and and in Pink Colour under Khasra No.563/1, K 1, Khata No.753/1142 area of vill village Channu, Tehsil Malout,
Legal Reasoning
District Sri M ri Muktsar Sahib, vide copy of Jama Jamabandi for the year 2014-15, illegally and and forcibly without once for all. Th The said suit was decreed vide judgment an t and decree dated 20.02.2018 p 18 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junio unior Division), Malout; which was as duly affirmed by the learned first Appellat ellate Court/District Judge, Sri Mukt ktsar Sahib vide judgment and SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 2 of 8 8 (cid:1) decree dated ated 12.04.2019 passed in CA No.3 No.34 of 02.04.2018 filed by the appellant/de t/defendant. 3. Learned counsel for the he appellant inter alia submits that in passin assing the impugned judgments, the , the learned Courts below failed to appreciate ciate that the revenue record is con contrary to the pleadings made in the suit r uit regarding the identification of t of the property. It is submitted that the plain plaintiff/respondent had filed the su he suit regarding property vested in Khasra No a No.563/1 whereas the revenue rec e record placed on record by the plaintiff show shows the same is situated in differe fferent Khasra No.563/3. 4. It is further submitted ed that the Government has constructed ted the street in dispute but incorre orrect inference has been drawn by the Cour Courts below regarding the same. me. The learned Courts below failed to app appreciate that the government u nt used to construct the public street which hich was meant for public; and th d therefore, the appellant had every right to ht to use the said street. The learne arned Courts below have passed the impugne ugned judgments in a very casual m al manner without appreciating the evidence ence. Undue weightage has been g en given to the oral statements. Reliance has has been wrongly placed upon th n the cross-examination of the appellant/de t/defendant who is a rustic village lager while not appreciating the documentary ntary evidence which has resulted in ed in miscarriage of justice. 5. 6. No other argument is raise aised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned cou counsel for the appellant and perused the the case file in great detail. SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 7. Briefly stated the case of e of the respondent/plaintiff as Page 3 of 8 8 (cid:1) set out in th in the plaint is that since long, he he is resident of the suit house which falls in s in the Khasra No. 563/1. To this this effect Aks Shijra as well as Jamabandi a di and rough site plan are also at o attached. It has been further submitted th d that there is a private street whi which leads to the home of the plaintiff from from main road shown in the pink ink colour and marked as ABCD. The said str treet is private street which is is kept by the plaintiff for his domestic use c use only and the plaintiff left the the said area of the street from the land of h of his ownership which is running ning at the spot since last more than 40 year years without any hindrance and t nd the plaintiff is using the said street since ince its inception for ingress and nd outgress to his house. The house of the f the defendant is adjoining to the the house of the plaintiff. The main gate of te of the house of the defendant op t opened towards the main road fully shown wn in the rough site plan. The def defendant has no concern with the private ate street shown as ABCD. Now w w with his ulterior motive the defendant il nt illegally, forcibly intended to ins o install/open the gate towards the private s te street of the plaintiff shown in p in pink colour for which he has no right. Plai Plaintiff requested the defendant n nt not to install/open main gate of his house use in the suit street illegally and fo d forcibly but the defendant has been avoidin oiding the matter on one pretext or xt or the other and ultimately he has refused sed to admit the claim of the plain plaintiff. Hence, the present suit for permane anent injunction was filed by the re e respondent/plaintiff. SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 8. Upon notice, the appell pellant/defendant had put in Page 4 of 8 8 (cid:1) appearance nce and filed written statement int t inter alia pleading therein that the street in t in dispute is a public street and p nd public money has been used on the dispu isputed street and that the plaint laintiff has no concern with the street. A rep replication was filed by the respo espondent/plaintiff denying the averments m ts made in the written statement. 9. On the basis of pleading dings and evidence, following issues were f ere framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitle ntitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is iff is not maintainable in present form?OPD fo 3. Whether plaintiff has neither ither cause of action nor locus ?OPD standi to file the present suit ?OPD 4. Relief” 10. The four prosecution witn witnesses including residents of the same lo e locality corroborated the version sion of the plaint. The certified copy of Aks Aksh Sijra (Ex.P2), site plan (Ex.P (Ex.P3), Jamabandi (Ex.P4) and photographs aphs (Mark A and B) were prove oven on record. The appellant examined hi d himself as DW1; and examined ined Ranjit Singh as DW2 and closed his ev is evidence. 11. It has been contended on on behalf of the appellant that the street in et in dispute is Public Street as as it has been constructed by government ent funds. However, it has to be no e noted that the learn trial court SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 5 of 8 8 (cid:1) in the judgm dgment dated 20.2.2018 has record orded that even the appellant in his cross-exa examination has admitted that: “16....However, in his cross-exami xamination he admitted that the ownership of his land is still in ll in the name of his father. He further admitted that fu iron ga n gate which shown in the photograph at Mark A, is install alled in their land. He further admitted that one portion of the f their land is abutted to some mettled road. He further submitte mitted that the street in question leads to the house of the plainti laintiff Gurdev Singh. He further admitted that the whole estate i ate including land and house, is vested in plaintiff Gurdev Singh a gh after the death of Surjit Kaur. He further admitted that street in et in question is not with land of his ownership. He further admitte mitted that he has not placed on file any document through which fil hich it can be proved that street in question is public street. He fu e further admitted that he does not know whether any writing iss g issued by Panchayat is correct or not. ………… 17. The nature of the street in qu in question is also not known to the defendant. Defendant is als s also admitting that street in question has no street with land and of his ownership. He further admitted that his land has other other passage and already gate installed abutted to main me mettled road. Further from photograph Mark A the plea of a of plaintiff got strengthened. Thus, if the street in question on n only leads to the house of the plaintiff then no other person ex on except plaintiff has right the same. Moreover, defendant admit dmitted in his cross-examination that he cannot tell whether the s the street in question is public or private. This fact is also goes into s into favour of the plaintiff that defendant already have its gate gate/ passage abutted to main gate. This fact is also admitted itted that since his child hood, SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 6 of 8 8 (cid:1) plaintiff is residing in the same h me house. If defendant succeeds in opening the gate in the private vate street by the plaintiff then it would amount direct interferenc rence in the house of plaintiff, therefore, the case is made out out in favour of the plaintiff. Further if no injunction is grant ranted then plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be ot be compensated in terms of money.” 12. The aforesaid judgment an t and decree was challenged by the appellan llant before the learned District Jud t Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, which vide the im impugned judgment and decree ree dated 12.4.2019, gave the following fin findings: - “19. Defendant Jaskaran Singh Singh while stepping into the witness box as DW1 has admitt mitted in his cross-examination that street in question is not on th on the land of his ownership. He has further admitted that his lan s land has other passage and he had already installed gate which hich is abutting to main mettled road. The defendant has not s ot specifically denied that the street in question is a private str te street and has stated that he could not tell whether the stre street in question is public or private. He has categorically state stated that it was correct that he had not placed on judicial file file any such document which proves that street in dispute is a is a public street. He has further stated that it was correct that hat only Sarpanch, Nambardar, Panch etc. could disclose whethe ether street is private or public. He has admitted that he enter nters in his plot through gate shown in Photograph which is Ma is Mark A and also through back side of the street. So from sta statement of DW1 defendant Jaskaran Singh it is evident that Ja that the gate of his house opens SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 7 of 8 8 (cid:1) on the mettled road and thus he s he is having the other passage for entering in his house, which fo hich lends corroboration to the case of the plaintiff, that the s he street in question is private street of the plaintiff that had had been left by him from his ownership for his personal use. 20.Much emphasis has been laid laid down by learned counsel for the appellant that plaintiff and h nd his witnesses have admitted that the street in question had had been brick-paved by the Government with the Governmen nment funds and as such it is a public street. No doubt, the plain plaintiff and his witnesses have admitted the above said fact tha t that the street had been brick- paved by the Government with ith the Government funds, but DW2 Ranjit Singh, who is Ex-Sarp Sarpanch of village Channu and is a witness of defendant has ca as categorically admitted in his cross-examination it to be c e correct, that as per the Government policy, all the stre streets of the village whether public streets and the private stre streets, were brick-paved by the Government. So if the street in qu in question had been brick-paved by the Government as per the G the Government policy, then no inference from it can be drawn th n that the street in question is a public street. So far as opening ing of the doors of some other houses in the street in quest uestion is concerned, it was specifically stated by the plaintiff ntiff and his witnesses that there are no other houses in the str e street in dispute except the relatives of plaintiff Gurdev Sing Singh. The defendant has not specifically named any other suc r such person whose house also falls in the street in dispute and w fa nd who is not relative of plaintiff Gurdev Singh. He has admitted in ed in his cross-examination to be correct that he had not mentioned ioned the name of the person, to whom he had disclosed in his affid affidavit Ex.DA,, whose house is situated in the same street. He . He has also admitted it to be SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 8 of 8 8 (cid:1) correct that the house of brother ther of Gurdev Singh is situated on the same street. He has furth further admitted it to be correct that he has no concern with the o the ownership of the said street. Besides that the defendant wh while appearing as DW1 has admitted it to be correct that the t the street leads to the house of plaintiff Gurdev Singh.” 13. Learned counsel for th the appellant is unable to controvert or t or dispute the aforesaid concurr current findings of the learned Courts below. low. As such, I find no ground is d is made out to entertain the present appea peal. 14. Before parting, it may be p be pointed out that the present appeal is of t of the year 2019 and notice has has not yet been issued in the matter. Presen esent case has been adjourned at re at request of learned counsel for the appellant ant on 16.10.2023, 12.01.2024 and and 04.09.2024; and due to non- appearance o e on behalf of the appellant on on 24.01.2023, 05.05.2023 and 07.05.2024. 15. 16. 09.01.2025 Sunena
Decision
In view of the above prese resent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)