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.
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
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.
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-
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
