Jaipal vs Kuldeep Singh & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 16632 P&H

    113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                              RSA-5052-2018 (O&M)
                                              Date of decision:13.12.2022
Jaipal
                                              ....Appellant
            Versus

Kuldeep Singh and others
                                              ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the appellants

Mr. Raghav Goel, Advocate for respondent no.1 to 3

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

While assailing the findings of the fact arrived at by the

First Appellate Court, defendant no.1 has filed the present appeal. It is

not in dispute between the parties that while deciding civil suit no.806 of

1986 'Virender Singh and others vs. Rai Singh etc.' the court carved

out street no.76. The plaintiff claims that in order to protect the

residential area of village from the over flow of water in a pond, the

permanent wall on the western edge of street no.76 was constructed

whereas defendant no.1 has demolished the said wall and has encroached

upon the aforesaid street. The Gram Panchayat despite intimation is not

taking any action against the defendant. The defendant while contesting

the suit admitted the decree passed in civil suit no.806 of 1986.

However, he claims that in a subsequent suit Smt. Chhoti etc. vs. Jumla

Malkan, a common passage no.76 was carved out. They claim that no

such wall has been constructed. Defendant no.1 claims that he is the

owner of the plots no.805-B, 805-C and 805-C. The trial court

1 of 2

dismissed the suit, however, the First Appellate Court, on reappreciation

of the evidence, found that the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be

decreed.

This Court has heard the learned counsel representing the

parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook

alongwith the requisitioned record. It is evident from the deposition of

PW4 Naresh, Clerk, who produced the layout plan (Ex.P1) that street

no.76 is coming from North and is going towards the Southern

direction. It is located towards the eastern side of the pond. The street is

in a straight line. The defendant has not led any evidence to prove that

his alleged vendor of plot no.805-C was the owner of the property. It

has also come in evidence that the Gram Panchayat has laid bricks in

order to brick line the street.

Although the learned counsel representing the appellant

made sincere attempts, however, failed to draw the attention of the Court

to any substantive error or perversity in the judgment of the First

Appellate Court. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.

Dismissed.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

13.12.2022                                      (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :       Yes/No
Whether reportable :              Yes/No




                                  2 of 2