R. S. A. No. 706 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 706 of 2011 Date of Decision : February 09, 2011 Mohinder Singh and others .... Appellants Vs. Municipal Committee, Pehowa and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Mohinder Singh etc. - plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal after remaining successful in the trial court, but having been non- suited by the lower appellate court. Plaintiffs filed suit against respondent no.1 – defendant Municipal Committee, Pehowa alleging that plaintiffs, along with other co- sharers, are owners in possession of 31 kanals land comprised of khasra no.148/3. The said land was got demarcated and fenced with pillars and wires. Defendant is owner of adjoining land of khasra no.148/1. However, R. S. A. No. 706 of 2011 2 defendant is raising construction over land of khasra no.148/3 without getting it demarcated. The defendant is thus encroaching upon the land of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any construction over the suit land of khasra no.148/3. The defendant controverted the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that defendant is also co-sharer in land of khasra no.148/3 to the extent of 193 shares. The defendant is, however, raising construction over land of khasra no.148/1, with which plaintiffs have no concern. No encroachment has been made by the defendant on land of khasra no.148/3. After demarcation, the defendant raised pucca boundary wall intervening land of khasra no.148/3 and khasra no.148/1. The plaintiffs did not raise any pillar or wire fencing. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa, vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2008, decreed the plaintiffs' suit. However, first appeal preferred by the defendant has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2010 and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Perusal of jamabandis placed on record reveals that defendant R. S. A. No. 706 of 2011 3 is also co-sharer in the suit land of khasra no.148/3, although plaintiffs emphatically denied the same. However, defendant's claim in this regard is supported by jamabandis, which have not been rebutted. Consequently, defendant being co-sharer in the suit land, plaintiffs cannot be granted injunction prayed for. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellants contended that only street etc. existing in the suit land vest in defendant – Municipal Committee. The contention is completely meritless being beyond pleadings as well as not substantiated by evidence. On the other hand, defendant is admittedly owner of adjoining land of khasra no.148/1. The defendant is raising construction therein. Local Commissioner appointed by the Court reported that no encroachment is being made by the defendant on the suit land. Plaintiffs preferred objections against the said report, but the said objections have not been substantiated. Plaintiffs relied on demarcation report obtained by them, but the said report was not obtained through Court. On the other hand, defendant alleged that official of the defendant was not present at the time of said demarcation. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. The defendant has categorically asserted in the written statement that it is not raising any construction in the suit land of khasra no.148/3, although defendant is co-sharer therein. No encroachment is proved to have been made by the defendant on the said land. Consequently, the plaintiffs R. S. A. No. 706 of 2011 4 are not entitled to any injunction as prayed for. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine, although for different reasons than recorded by the lower appellate court. February 09, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE