Ashok Omi Paliwal & O & Ors v. CORAM
Case Details
RSA No. 118 of of 2022 IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH RSA No. 118 of 2022(O Date of decision: 01.09 (O&M) 1.09.2025 Ashok Omi Paliwal & O & Ors. Versus CORAM :HON’BL PTA N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate or the appellant. for t *** DEEPAK GUPTA, TA, J. …Appellan llant …Respondent ents
Legal Reasoning
It is plaintiff’s appeal against the co It is e concurrent findings of the Court ourts below, as suit fo it for permanent and mandatory ory injunction filed by the plaintif intiff regarding proper operty in dispute was dismissed by t and by the trial Court on 22.05.2019 and the appeal filed filed by him was dismissed by t on by the First Appellate Court on 04.02.2020. 2. Assailing the concurrent findings, it Assa
Legal Reasoning
unsel s, it is contended by learned counse for the appellan ellant-plaintiff that evidence on on record has not been properl perly appreciated. Lea Learned counsel contends that s at since the property in dispute i te is situated within Lal Dora of the village, so it cann annot be expected of the plaintiff iff to have documenta entary proof regarding the measur d so, asurements of his property and so Courts below hav have fallen in error in dismissing th g the suit. 3. Plaintiff claimed to be owner in pos Plain d on possession of house constructed on land measuring 1 ing 115.5 sq. yards situated within in Lal Dora of village Murthal, Tehs ehsil and District Son Sonipat. He claimed it to be his been his ancestral property having been constructed in th in the year 1970 and that on the he northern side of the same, ther there existed his exclu xclusive wall, where he had constru nstructed a latrine and bathroom. I m. It was alleged tha that in collusion with defenda had ndant No.1, defendant No.2 had JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.02 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of 3 RSA No. 118 of of 2022 demolished the the roof of plaintiff’s verandah an h and upper boundary wall of hi f his house, without h ut having any right. 4. The stand of defendant No.1 was The land as that there was Panchayati land belonging to def defendants No.2 and 3 in betwee f and ween the house of the plaintiff and chopal. The plain plaintiff tried to encroach upon th the n this vacant land and blocked the water outlet of of the house of defendant No.1 o.1, which existed by the side o e of chopal, without h out having any right to do so. As it ience s it had caused great inconvenience to defendant No t No.1, so he made a complaint to uired t to defendant No.2, who inquired into the matter tter and removed the encroachme thus, hment on 23.05.2016. It was, thus claimed that u t unauthorized construction of of plaintiff was demolished b by defendant No.2 a o.2 and so he was not entitled to an o any relief of injunction. 5. Taking a similar stand, it was plea Taki nd 3 pleaded by defendants No.2 and 3 (respondents No No.2 and 3 herein) that there exis existed a Gali towards western sid side of the house of p of plaintiff and plaintiff had encroac roached upon the land of defendan dant No.2 measuring ring 10 X 45 feet in the northern hern side of his house by illegall gally constructing latri latrine and bathroom and it is only only after serving a statutory notic otice under Municipal cipal Act upon him, the illegal co l construction of the plaintiff wa was demolished. Pray Prayer was accordingly made for dis r dismissal of the suit. 6. After framing the necessary issues Afte trial sues and taking the evidence, tria Court dismissed sed the suit of the plaintiff and all th y the all the findings were affirmed by the First Appellate Co te Court. 7. Learned counsel for appellant con Lear contends that simply because sit site plan of the prope roperty was not produced by the p on to he plaintiff, could not be a reason to dismiss the suit a uit and that his application for add additional evidence before the Firs First Appellate Court urt to produce the site plan was also as also wrongly rejected. It is also contended that that there cannot be any docu documentary proof regarding th the dimensions of th f the property. 8. After hearing learned counsel for Afte for appellant at length, this Cour ourt finds that no sub substantial question of law is involv nvolved in the present appeal. Ther here are concurrent fi nt findings recorded by the Courts ence urts below based upon the evidence JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.02 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of 3 RSA No. 118 of of 2022 on record to the the effect that there existed a sm small space between the house se of plaintiff and defe defendant No.1, which was used t and ed to access the village chopal and belonged to the the Gram Panchayat and that pla the plaintiff had encroached upon the same. It is on on the complaint of defendant N had nt No.1 that defendant No.2 had demolished the the illegal construction. The plaint laintiff did not produce any cogen gent evidence so as to as to prove the measurements of his f his property. 9. In the face of aforesaid discussion In th ssion, this Court does not find an any perversity or ille r illegality in the concurrent findin ndings of facts recorded by Court ourts below calling for for any interference. As such, pre present appeal being devoid of an f any merits, is hereby eby dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), stands dispo Pend isposed of. 01.09.2025 Jiten Whe Whe hether speaking/reasoned hether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.02 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 3 of 3