Chain Singh and Others Chain Singh and Others v. Swaran Lal and Another Swaran Lal and Another
Case Details
RSA-2972-2012 2012 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA RSA-2972-2012 (O&M) Reserved on: Reserved on:-09.09.2025 Date of Decision : 10.09.2025 Date of Decision : Chain Singh and Others Chain Singh and Others ....Appellants VERSUS Swaran Lal and Another Swaran Lal and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the respondents. -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants– The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants appellants against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2011 passed by the learned appellants against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2011 passed by the learned appellants against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2011 passed by the learned appellants against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby the judgment and Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby the judgment and Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby the judgment and Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby the judgment and
Legal Reasoning
ourt has been reversed. decree dated 30.07.2009 of the learned trial Court has been reversed. decree dated 30.07.2009 of Brief Facts 2. filed a Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff –Swaran Lal filed a Brief facts of the present case are that t Brief facts of the present case are that t suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from carving out any suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from carving out any suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from carving out any suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from carving out any passage or rasta in the suit land measuring 7 Kanals 7 Ma passage or rasta in the suit land measuring rlas comprised in Khewat 7 Kanals 7 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 171, Khatuni No. 295/1, Rec uni No. 295/1, Rectangle No. 24, Killa No. 12 (7 situated in tangle No. 24, Killa No. 12 (7-7) situated in . It was pleaded Village Bhaini Bangar, H.B No.530, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. It was pleaded Village Bhaini Bangar, H.B No.530, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur Village Bhaini Bangar, H.B No.530, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur that he along with his co-sharers Kewal Krishan, Ashok Kuma that he along with his co r, Sawarno Devi, sharers Kewal Krishan, Ashok Kumar, Sawarno Devi,
Legal Reasoning
anti was the owner and in cultivating possession of the Bimla Devi and Smt. Laj Wanti was the owner and in cultivating possession of the anti was the owner and in cultivating possession of the Bimla Devi and Smt. Laj said land. According to the plaintiff, the defendants whose land abuts the suit said land. According to the plaintiff, the defendants whose land abuts the suit said land. According to the plaintiff, the defendants whose land abuts the suit said land. According to the plaintiff, the defendants whose land abuts the suit TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2972-2012 2012 (O&M) -2- - forcibly property had no right, title or interest therein, yet they were threatening to forcibly property had no right, title or interest therein, yet they were threatening to property had no right, title or interest therein, yet they were threatening to interfere in his possession and were adamant to carve out a passage. interfere in his possession and were adamant to carve out a passage. interfere in his possession and were adamant to carve out a passage. 3. o. 1 to 4 contested the suit by way of joint Upon notice, defendants No. 1 to 4 contested the suit by way of joint o. 1 to 4 contested the suit by way of joint Upon notice, defendants N o. 5 was dismissed as written statement, whereas the suit against defendant No. 5 was dismissed as written statement, whereas the suit against defendant written statement, whereas the suit against defendant statement, the defendants raised preliminary objections withdrawn. In the written statement, the defendants raised preliminary objections statement, the defendants raised preliminary objections withdrawn. In the written that the plaintiff had not approached the C ourt with clean hands. On merits, they aintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands. On merits, they ourt with clean hands. On merits, they admitted the ownership of the plaintiff but pleaded that there exists a passage of 2 admitted the ownership of the plaintiff but pleaded that there exists a passage of 2 admitted the ownership of the plaintiff but pleaded that there exists a passage of 2 admitted the ownership of the plaintiff but pleaded that there exists a passage of 2 karams wide on the western side of the land in dispute which leads to Ah karams wide on the western side o ta Chah nd in dispute which leads to Ahata Chah and further to their land. The passage, according to them, runs through Khewat No. and further to their land. The passage, according to them, runs through Khewat No. and further to their land. The passage, according to them, runs through Khewat No. and further to their land. The passage, according to them, runs through Khewat No. 18), Khewat No. 407, 254, Khatauni No. 414, Rectangle No. 24, Killa No. 9/1 (6-18), Khewat No. 407, 254, Khatauni No. 414, Rectangle No. 24, Killa No. 9/1 (6 254, Khatauni No. 414, Rectangle No. 24, Killa No. 9/1 (6 2). It was asserted that this Khatauni No. 670, Rectangle No. 24, Killa No. 26 (1-2). It was asserted that this Khatauni No. 670, Rectangle No. 24, Killa No. Khatauni No. 670, Rectangle No. 24, Killa No. passage was in existence since consolidation, duly shown in the revenue record, passage was in existence since consolidation, duly shown in the revenue record, passage was in existence since consolidation, duly shown in the revenue record, passage was in existence since consolidation, duly shown in the revenue record, and its demarcation was carried out on 17.11.2004 by the revenue authorities. The and its demarcation was carried out on 17.11.2004 by the revenue authorities. The and its demarcation was carried out on 17.11.2004 by the revenue authorities. The and its demarcation was carried out on 17.11.2004 by the revenue authorities. The aintiff demolished the defendants pleaded that after the said demarcation, the plaintiff demolished the defendants pleaded that after the said demarcation, the pl defendants pleaded that after the said demarcation, the pl demarcation pillars and encroached upon the passage. demarcation pillars and encroached upon the passage. demarcation pillars and encroached upon the passage. 4. Defendants No. 1 to 3 also filed a counter Defendants N claim seeking mandatory o. 1 to 3 also filed a counter-claim seeking mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to remove the encroachment made on the passage injunction directing the plaintiff to remove the encroachment made on the passage injunction directing the plaintiff to remove the encroachment made on the passage injunction directing the plaintiff to remove the encroachment made on the passage the site plan and to restrain him from obstructing their as shown in blue colour in the site plan and to restrain him from obstructing their the site plan and to restrain him from obstructing their as shown in blue colour in use thereof. 5. The plaintiff filed reply to the counter The plain claim denying the existence of tiff filed reply to the counter-claim denying the existence of any such rasta. He denied that any demarcation was conducted by the revenue any such rasta. He denied that any demarcation was conducted by the revenue any such rasta. He denied that any demarcation was conducted by the revenue any such rasta. He denied that any demarcation was conducted by the revenue chment on any passage. He raised preliminary authorities and also denied encroachment on any passage. He raised preliminary chment on any passage. He raised preliminary authorities and also denied encroa joinder of necessary objections regarding maintainability, limitation and non-joinder of necessary objections regarding maintainability, limitation and non objections regarding maintainability, limitation and non parties. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2972-2012 2012 (O&M) -3- - 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? If so, its effect? OPD hands? If so, its effect? OPD 4. Whether the defendants are entitled to the decree of mandatory Whether the defendants are entitled to the decree of mandatory Whether the defendants are entitled to the decree of mandatory unction on the ground mentioned in the counter claim? OPD injunction on the ground mentioned in the counter claim? OPD unction on the ground mentioned in the counter claim? OPD 5. Whether the counter claim is not maintainable in the present Whether the counter claim is not maintainable in the present Whether the counter claim is not maintainable in the present form? OPD form? OPD 6. Whether the counter claim is barred by time? OPD Whether the counter claim is barred by time? OPD 7. Whether the counter claim is bad for non joinder of necessary Whether the counter claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPP parties 8. Relief. 7. 2 and The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, Ravinder Singh as PW-2 and The plaintiff examined himself as PW The plaintiff examined himself as PW 3, and then closed his evidence. Bawa Singh as PW-3, and then closed his evidence. Bawa Singh as PW 8. On the other hand, the defendants examined Ranjit Singh, Halqa On the other hand, the defendants examined Ranjit Singh, Halqa On the other hand, the defendants examined Ranjit Singh, Halqa On the other hand, the defendants examined Ranjit Singh, Halqa Patwari as DW- and defendant Chain Singh 1, J.S. Dhanjal, Draftsman as DW-2, and defendant Chain Singh -1, J.S. Dhanjal, Draftsman as DW himself as DW- h Sajra Ex. D1, site plan 3. They also tendered into evidence Akash Sajra Ex. D1, site plan -3. They also tendered into evidence Ak D3, Jamabandi Ex. D4 and Ex. D5, and Musavi/Aks Ex.D2, demarcation report Ex.D3, Jamabandi Ex. D4 and Ex. D5, and Musavi/Aks D3, Jamabandi Ex. D4 and Ex. D5, and Musavi/Aks Ex.D2, demarcation report Ex. Shajra Mark A. Finding of the trial Court Finding of the trial Court 9. upon appreciation of the evidence, held that a The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, held that a upon appreciation of the evidence, held that a The learned trial 2 karams wide existed between Khasra Nos. 11 and 12 leading to Killa passage of 2 karams wide existed between Khasra Nos. 11 and 12 leading to Killa 2 karams wide existed between Khasra Nos. 11 and 12 leading to Killa 2 karams wide existed between Khasra Nos. 11 and 12 leading to Killa No. 26 and thereafter to Ahata Chah, adjoining the land of the defendants. It was No. 26 and thereafter to Ahata Chah, adjoining the land of the defendants. It was No. 26 and thereafter to Ahata Chah, adjoining the land of the defendants. It was No. 26 and thereafter to Ahata Chah, adjoining the land of the defendants. It was TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2972-2012 2012 (O&M) -4- - examination that the further noticed that the plaintiff himself admitted in cross-examination that the further noticed that the plaintiff himself admi further noticed that the plaintiff himself admi passage leads upto Killa No. 19. On the basis of the oral as well as documentary passage leads upto Killa No. 19. On the basis of the oral as well as documentary passage leads upto Killa No. 19. On the basis of the oral as well as documentary passage leads upto Killa No. 19. On the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the trial court concluded that the existence of the passage was duly evidence, the trial court concluded that the existence of the passage was duly evidence, the trial court concluded that the existence of the passage was duly evidence, the trial court concluded that the existence of the passage was duly e suit of the plaintiff proved, while the plaintiff failed to establish otherwise. The suit of the plaintiff proved, while the plaintiff failed to establish otherwise. Th proved, while the plaintiff failed to establish otherwise. Th was, accordingly, dismissed with costs, whereas the counter claim of the was, accordingly, dismissed with costs, whereas the counter claim of the was, accordingly, dismissed with costs, whereas the counter claim of the was, accordingly, dismissed with costs, whereas the counter claim of the defendants was decreed and a decree sheet prepared accordingly on 30.07.2009. defendants was decreed and a decree sheet prepared accordingly on 30.07.2009. defendants was decreed and a decree sheet prepared accordingly on 30.07.2009. Findings of the Lower Appellate Court Findings of the Lower Appellate Court 10. ch was accepted by the learned The plaintiff preferred an appeal, which was accepted by the learned The plaintiff preferred an appeal, whi The plaintiff preferred an appeal, whi Lower Appellate Court on 13.12.2011. The Appellate Court Lower Appellate Court held that although the Appellate Court held that although the sharers were proved to be in joint possession of the land as per plaintiff and his co-sharers were proved to be in joint possession of the land as per sharers were proved to be in joint possession of the land as per plaintiff and his co s had failed to prove Jamabandi Ex. P1 and Khasra Girdawari Ex. P2, the defendants had failed to prove Jamabandi Ex. P1 and Khasra Girdawari Ex. P2, the defendant Jamabandi Ex. P1 and Khasra Girdawari Ex. P2, the defendant the khasra number of the alleged passage. It was observed that during the khasra number of the alleged passage. It was observed that during the khasra number of the alleged passage. It was observed that during the khasra number of the alleged passage. It was observed that during consolidation, all passages left for public use were assigned khasra numbers and consolidation, all passages left for public use were assigned khasra numbers and consolidation, all passages left for public use were assigned khasra numbers and consolidation, all passages left for public use were assigned khasra numbers and duly entered in the field book. Since the defendants had failed to bring any such duly entered in the field book. Since the defendants had failed to bring any such duly entered in the field book. Since the defendants had failed to bring any such duly entered in the field book. Since the defendants had failed to bring any such aterial on record, the court held that no passage existed as alleged by them. material on record, the court held that no passage existed as alleged by them. aterial on record, the court held that no passage existed as alleged by them. aterial on record, the court held that no passage existed as alleged by them. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was set aside, the suit of the plaintiff Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was set aside, the suit of the plaintiff Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was set aside, the suit of the plaintiff Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was set aside, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, and the counter claim of the defendants was dismissed. was decreed, and the counter claim of the defendants was dismissed. was decreed, and the counter claim of the defendants was dismissed. 11. sent Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the Aggrieved, the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the sent Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the Aggrieved, the pre appellants. defendants–appellants. 12. Notice of the appeal was issued and respondents appeared through Notice of the appeal was issued and respondents appeared through Notice of the appeal was issued and respondents appeared through Notice of the appeal was issued and respondents appeared through their counsel to contest the same. their counsel to contest the same. Submissions of the learned counsel for the parties Submissions of the learned counsel for the parties Submissions of the learned counsel for the parties 13. learned Lower Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned Lower Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the erred in law by ignoring the documentary and oral evidence on Appellate Court erred in law by ignoring the documentary and oral evidence on erred in law by ignoring the documentary and oral evidence on Appellate Court record. It was submitted that the dispute was never about the ownership of the record. It was submitted that the dispute was never about the ownership of the record. It was submitted that the dispute was never about the ownership of the record. It was submitted that the dispute was never about the ownership of the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2972-2012 2012 (O&M) -5- - only regarding the existence of the passage of 2 plaintiff, which was admitted, but only regarding the existence of the passage of 2 only regarding the existence of the passage of 2 plaintiff, which was admitted, but karams wide between Khasra Nos. 11 and 12. The defendants had led cogent karams wide between Khasra Nos. 11 and 12. The defendants had led cogent karams wide between Khasra Nos. 11 and 12. The defendants had led cogent karams wide between Khasra Nos. 11 and 12. The defendants had led cogent evidence by examining DW-1 Ranjit Singh, Halqa Patwari, DW evidence by examining DW 2 J.S. Dhanjal, 1 Ranjit Singh, Halqa Patwari, DW-2 J.S. Dhanjal, Draftsman, and DW-3 Chain Singh, who had duly proved Ak Draftsman, and DW Sajra Ex. D1, site 3 Chain Singh, who had duly proved Akash Sajra Ex. D1, site D4 and Ex. D5. Further, Ex.D2, demarcation report Ex.D3, Jamabandi Ex.D4 and Ex. D5. Further, Ex.D2, demarcation report Ex.D3, Jamabandi Ex. plan Ex.D2, demarcation report Ex.D3, Jamabandi Ex. Musavi/Akash S clearly showed the passage between Killa Nos. 11/3 h Sajra Mark ‘A’ clearly showed the passage between Killa Nos. 11/3 clearly showed the passage between Killa Nos. 11/3 and 12 leading to Ahata Chah. The Appellate C and 12 leading to Ahata Chah. The ourt illegally brushed aside this Appellate Court illegally brushed aside this erial evidence by observing that the khasra number of the passage had not been material evidence by observing that the khasra number of the passage had not been erial evidence by observing that the khasra number of the passage had not been erial evidence by observing that the khasra number of the passage had not been proved, despite Musavi showing khasra Nos. 284 and 285 between Killa Nos. 19 proved, despite Musavi showing khasra Nos. 284 and 285 between Killa Nos. 19 proved, despite Musavi showing khasra Nos. 284 and 285 between Killa Nos. 19 proved, despite Musavi showing khasra Nos. 284 and 285 between Killa Nos. 19 and 20 and Killa Nos. 11/3 and 12. It was contended that Musavi is the basic and 20 and Killa Nos. 11/3 and 12. It was contended that Musavi is the basic and 20 and Killa Nos. 11/3 and 12. It was contended that Musavi is the basic and 20 and Killa Nos. 11/3 and 12. It was contended that Musavi is the basic f which field book is prepared, and though not exhibited, it document on the basis of which field book is prepared, and though not exhibited, it f which field book is prepared, and though not exhibited, it document on the basis o could always be referred to for collateral purposes. could always be referred to for collateral purposes. could always be referred to for collateral purposes. 14. supported the On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent judgment of the learned Appellate Court and argued that no passage e judgment of the ver existed ourt and argued that no passage ever existed through the suit land. It was submitted that the defendants fabricated documents through the suit land. It was submitted that the defendants fabricated documents through the suit land. It was submitted that the defendants fabricated documents through the suit land. It was submitted that the defendants fabricated documents later to carve out a rasta and failed to produce any khasra number of such alleged later to carve out a rasta and failed to produce any khasra number of such alleged later to carve out a rasta and failed to produce any khasra number of such alleged later to carve out a rasta and failed to produce any khasra number of such alleged passage. The counter claim itself was self-contradictory, as the defendants plea passage. The counter claim itself was self ded contradictory, as the defendants pleaded that there was no other passage except the disputed one, but had not explained as to that there was no other passage except the disputed one, but had not explained as to that there was no other passage except the disputed one, but had not explained as to that there was no other passage except the disputed one, but had not explained as to how they were approaching their land for the last several years during the how they were approaching their land for the last several years during the how they were approaching their land for the last several years during the how they were approaching their land for the last several years during the pendency of the litigation. It was further argued that there did exist another passage pendency of the litigation. It was further argued that there did exist another passage pendency of the litigation. It was further argued that there did exist another passage pendency of the litigation. It was further argued that there did exist another passage the defendants were using, and no such rasta existed as claimed in the site which the defendants were using, and no such rasta existed as claimed in the site the defendants were using, and no such rasta existed as claimed in the site the defendants were using, and no such rasta existed as claimed in the site plan filed by them, which was vague and not connected to the property in dispute. plan filed by them, which was vague and not connected to the property in dispute. plan filed by them, which was vague and not connected to the property in dispute. plan filed by them, which was vague and not connected to the property in dispute. Findings of this Court Findings of this Court 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the record. This Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the the record. This Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the the record. This Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the the record. This Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2972-2012 2012 (O&M) -6- - learned first appellate court are unsustainable. The trial court had, on the basis of learned first appellate court are unsustainable. The trial court had, on the basis of learned first appellate court are unsustainable. The trial court had, on the basis of learned first appellate court are unsustainable. The trial court had, on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence including Ak oral as well as doc Sajra Ex. D1, site plan Ex. umentary evidence including Akash Sajra Ex. D1, site plan Ex. D2, demarcation report Ex. D3, clearly established that a passage 2 karams wide D2, demarcation report Ex. D3, clearly established that a passage 2 karams wide D2, demarcation report Ex. D3, clearly established that a passage 2 karams wide D2, demarcation report Ex. D3, clearly established that a passage 2 karams wide existed between Khasra Nos. 11 and 12 leading to Killa No. 26 and thereafter to existed between Khasra Nos. 11 and 12 leading to Killa No. 26 and thereafter to existed between Khasra Nos. 11 and 12 leading to Killa No. 26 and thereafter to existed between Khasra Nos. 11 and 12 leading to Killa No. 26 and thereafter to dated 17.11.2004 (Ex. D3), prepared by the Ahata Chah. The demarcation report dated 17.11.2004 (Ex. D3), prepared by the dated 17.11.2004 (Ex. D3), prepared by the Ahata Chah. The demarcation report revenue authorities in the presence of the parties, specifically recorded existence of revenue authorities in the presence of the parties, specifically recorded existence of revenue authorities in the presence of the parties, specifically recorded existence of revenue authorities in the presence of the parties, specifically recorded existence of the said passage and demarcated it on the spot. The plaintiff himself, in cross- the said passage and demarcated it on the spot. The plaintiff himself, in cross the said passage and demarcated it on the spot. The plaintiff himself, in cross the said passage and demarcated it on the spot. The plaintiff himself, in cross upto Killa No. 19. The Musavi/Akash upto Killa No. 19. The Musavi/Ak examination, admitted that the passage leads upto Killa No. 19. The Musavi/Ak examination, admitted that the passage leads Sajra produced on record also shows khasra Nos. 284, 285 and 286 earmarked as Sajra produced on record also shows khasra Nos. 284, 285 and 286 earmarked as Sajra produced on record also shows khasra Nos. 284, 285 and 286 earmarked as Sajra produced on record also shows khasra Nos. 284, 285 and 286 earmarked as passage. 16. ourt discarded this evidence on a hyper- The learned Appellate Court discarded this evidence on a hyper ourt discarded this evidence on a hyper The e very revenue technical ground that khasra number was not mentioned, whereas the very revenue technical ground that khasra number was not mentioned, whereas th technical ground that khasra number was not mentioned, whereas th record relied upon by the defendants including the demarcation report clearly record relied upon by the defendants including the demarcation report clearly record relied upon by the defendants including the demarcation report clearly record relied upon by the defendants including the demarcation report clearly showed the existence of passage. The learned A showed the existence of passage. The ourt further overlooked learned Appellate Court further overlooked the present suit was filed on 20.11.2004 immediately after the material fact that the present suit was filed on 20.11.2004 immediately after the present suit was filed on 20.11.2004 immediately after the material fact that hree days of demarcation of land which was conducted on 17.11.2004 which three days of demarcation of land which was conducted on 17.11.2004 which hree days of demarcation of land which was conducted on 17.11.2004 which hree days of demarcation of land which was conducted on 17.11.2004 which shows the malafide on the part of plaintiff. shows the malafide on the part of plaintiff. 17. Once Once Once Once the existence of passage stood established by reliable the existence of passage stood established by reliable the existence of passage stood established by reliable the existence of passage stood established by reliable ings, the documentary and oral evidence, supported by official demarcation proceedings, the documentary and oral evidence, supported by official demarcation proceed documentary and oral evidence, supported by official demarcation proceed plaintiff was not entitled to injunction against the rightful use thereof by the plaintiff was not entitled to injunction against the rightful use thereof by the plaintiff was not entitled to injunction against the rightful use thereof by the plaintiff was not entitled to injunction against the rightful use thereof by the defendants. The trial court had rightly dismissed the plaintiff’s suit and decreed the defendants. The trial court had rightly dismissed the plaintiff’s suit and decreed the defendants. The trial court had rightly dismissed the plaintiff’s suit and decreed the defendants. The trial court had rightly dismissed the plaintiff’s suit and decreed the ctures counter claim. The findings of the first appellate court, being based on conjectures counter claim. The findings of the first appellate court, being based on conje counter claim. The findings of the first appellate court, being based on conje and assumptions while ignoring cogent documentary evidence including the and assumptions while ignoring cogent documentary evidence including the and assumptions while ignoring cogent documentary evidence including the and assumptions while ignoring cogent documentary evidence including the demarcation report, cannot be sustained. demarcation report, cannot be sustained. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2972-2012 2012 (O&M) -7- - Conclusion: 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the judgment and decree dated In view of the foregoing discussion, the judgment and decree dated In view of the foregoing discussion, the judgment and decree dated In view of the foregoing discussion, the judgment and decree dated District Judge, Fast Track Court, 13.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, 13.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional 13.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional 09 passed by the Gurdaspur, is set aside. The judgment and decree dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Gurdaspur, is set aside. The judgment and decree dated 30.07.20 Gurdaspur, is set aside. The judgment and decree dated 30.07.20 ourt is restored. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff stands learned trial Court is restored. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff stands ourt is restored. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff stands learned trial C stands decreed. dismissed with costs, while the counter claim of the defendants stands decreed. dismissed with costs, while the counter claim of the defendants dismissed with costs, while the counter claim of the defendants Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 19. 20. said terms. The present Regular Second Appeal is allowed in the afore-said terms. The present Regular Second Appeal is allowed in the afore The present Regular Second Appeal is allowed in the afore
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. , 2025 September 10, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No. : Yes/No. Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document