Parminder Singh & Anr. v. Harvinder Singh & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. CM No. 5361-C is allowed and delay in re-filing is condoned. CM No. 5362-C is allowed and the applicants are impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, subject to all just expectations and for the purpose of this appeal only. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff Balbir Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of appellants, filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants with the averments that he is owner and in possession of house shown as ABCDEFGH in the site plan, but the defendants who have no concern with the aforesaid house wants to demolish the wall shown at point GH and DI, forcibly and illegally. The stand of the defendants, on the other hand, was that the plaintiff is owner of his property and the defendants of their own house, however, under the gab of the suit the plaintiff wants to encroach upon the passage of the defendants whereas in fact no such wall is in existence.

They Regular Second Appeal No. 1909 of 2011 2 also pleaded that in another suit the plaintiff was restrained from demolishing the site DB. On appraisal of evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit so as the appeal by the learned appellate Court below, necessitating the plaintiff to file the instant regular second appeal. Heard. It is apparent that in an earlier round of litigation filed by defendant Balbir Singh wherein the plaintiff was impleaded as defendant, the latter was restrained from demolishing site DB illegally and forcibly by the learned trial Court and the findings were affirmed up to the appeal level. It is apparent that site GH was found to be the part of the house of defendant Balbir Singh while point DI falls along with street and is part of the house of the plaintiff, having no access for the defendants. In this view of the matter it was rightly held that when there is no gate or passage of defendants towards that site, there is no occasion for them to raise threats to the plaintiff to demolish the said wall because they are not going to derive any benefit by demolishing the same. There is no room to interfere with the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine November 08,2011 Jiten (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE