Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chander Bhan And Others vs Shri Chand (Deceased) Through His Lrs ... on 25 October, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
105 RSA-1036-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 25.10.2024
CHANDER BHAN AND ORS .... Appellants
VERSUS
SHRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR LRS AND ORS .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for the appellants.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by defendants No.1 to 4- appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2015 passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 3 as well as the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondents No.1 to 3 herein filed a suit for permanent injunction averring therein that Shadi Lal son of Fatta was the grandfather of the parties. The land of plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 3 was joint and common and devolved upon them through their ancestors. At the time of consolidation, the forefathers of the parties arranged the land for cultivation and at that time a path was left for ingress and egress of Killa No.608//5 and 6, 15/1 which fell to the share of father of the plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 3 in the arrangement for better management of their respective lands which took place in the year 1955. AMAN JAIN 2024.10.28 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 105 RSA-1036-2020 (O&M) -2- Khasra No.608//15/2, 16/1 fell to the share of the defendants No.1 to 4- appellants' father and the above said path through Khasra No.608//16 West- North corner 11x11 feet and 15 West Killa line 11 Feet in width was left for plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 3 for their ingress and egress of their fields comprised in Khasra No.608//5, 6 15/1 and since then the father of plaintiff- respondents No.1 to 3 and now plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 3 are using the same without any hindrance and to the knowledge of defendants No.1 to 4- appellants. The said path was left with the consent of all concerned. It was further averred that plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 3 are using the rasta in question since the year 1955 without any hindrance and had acquired easement rights too. Since defendants No.1 to 4-appellants were interfering in the ingress and egress of the path, therefore, the suit was filed by plaintiff- respondents No.1 to 3.
3. The defendants No.1 to 4-appellants filed a joint written statements raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction. On merits it was averred that there was no path for ingress and egress of Killa No.608//5 and 6, 15/1 which fell to the share of the father of plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 3. It was alleged that the khasra number mentioned in the plaint was never used as rasta by either the plaintiff- respondents No.1 to 3 or defendants No.1 to 4-appellants at any point of time and that plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 3 had no concern with the same. It was further the stand taken that plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 3 had their own rasta for ingress and egress to their respective fields. Defendants No.5 to 11 AMAN JAIN 2024.10.28 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 105 RSA-1036-2020 (O&M) -3- (respondents No.4 to 10 herein) filed their separate joint written statement and admitted the claim of the plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 3.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, mandatory and prohibitory, as prayed for on the grounds mentioned in the plaint ? OPP
2. Whether the suit is bad on account of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by her own act and conduct ? OPD
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD
6. Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands ? OPD
8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred ?
OPD
9. Relief.
AMAN JAIN 2024.10.28 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 105 RSA-1036-2020 (O&M) -4-
5. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 13.01.2015. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by defendants No.1 to 4-appellants which appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the present regular second appeal by defendants No.1 to 4-appellants.
6. Learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 4-appellants would contend that the dispute in the present case is between cousin brothers and that there was no rasta which had been left by their forefathers. It is further the contention that a totally false suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 3 and that both the Courts have erred in decreeing the suit in view of the fact that there is no rasta.
7. Heard.
8. In the present case both the Courts concurrently found that there was a rasta of two Karam on the Western Killa line of Killa No.15/2. Though defendants No.1 to 4-appellants had taken a stand that there was a separate rasta for ingress and egress to the fields, however, they failed to lead any evidence to show that there was any alternate path for ingress and egress for plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 3 to reach their fields. Both the Courts held that the case fell within the category of easementary of necessity and decreed the suit and dismissed the appeal accordingly. It was further held that there is only a rasta of 2 Karam on the Western Line of Killa No.15/2 to enter in Killa No.5 and 6 of Khasra No.608. Learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 4-appellants has not been able to convince this Court and has failed to show any evidence to show that there was any alternate path for ingress and egress of plaintiff- AMAN JAIN 2024.10.28 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 105 RSA-1036-2020 (O&M) -5- respondents No.1 to 3. Infact, defendants No.1 to 4-appellants in their evidence also admitted that except the rasta in question the plaintiff- respondents No.1 to 3 have no other way of going to their land comprised in Killa No.608//5 and 6 and they were using the same for the last 25-30 years. Therefore, easement of necessity has duly been proved.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case which requires determination by this Court. The appeal, being devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
25.10.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
AMAN JAIN
2024.10.28 09:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document