R.S.A. No. 2009 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2009 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.3.2009 Balbir Kumar & another .......... Appellants Versus Simru Ram & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.1.2006 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff / appellants claiming declaratory decree, that they were entitled to the use of community Hall constructed by the defendant / respondents, with a consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendant / respondents from interfering in the use of the property stands dismissed. The plaintiffs brought a suit admitting the fact that the community Hall in dispute was constructed by the defendant / respondents. The right claimed for use of the Community Hall was that as it was built on common purpose land the plaintiffs had also every right to use. Once the R.S.A. No. 2009 of 2006 2 building was not constructed by the plaintiff/ or body represented, the plaintiffs could not claim any right in use of the said Hall which was constructed by the defendant/ respondents. The learned Courts below held that the plaintiff / appellants had no legal right to use the community hall constructed by the defendant/ respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court :- Whether use of the building constructed on common purpose land can be denied to other residents by or other community ? The learned counsel for the appellant in support of the substantial question of law contends that once it was proved that the building was constructed on common purposes land by the defendant / respondents the other residents could not be denied the use of the community hall. It is contended that the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below therefore suffer from patent error. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the community hall was constructed for the personal use of particular community i.e. Adharmi and, therefore, meant for private use. On consideration, the substantial question of law deserves to be answered against the appellants / plaintiff as the community hall has been constructed by the defendant / respondent for their personal use of R.S.A. No. 2009 of 2006 3 community and plaintiff / appellants have no right of use. The remedy with plaintiff to challenge misuse of common purpose land lies some where else and not by civil suit. The learned Courts below were right in dismissing the suit for want of legal right with the plaintiff / appellants. The substantial question of law is decided against the appellants/ plaintiff. No merit. Dismissed. 25.3.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE