R.S.A.No.912 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.912 of 2006 Date of Decision : 10.8.2009 Chhaju Ram and others ...Appellants Versus Mahabir and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S.Sangwan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rao D.S.Nirban Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, arising out of suit for possession. The plaintiffs claim that Municipal Committee Mohindergarh is owner of a rasta as described in the head-note of the plaint. Said rasta was recognized as in existence in Civil Suit No.166 of 1980 decided on 19.3.1982 titled “Pribhu etc. Vs. Mahabir etc.” to the effect that there is 14 feet wide passage and Municipal Committee, Mohindergarh, is the owner. The said passage starts from the house of Mahabir and joins another rasta situated on the northern side of the house of Chhaju Ram. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the measurement of passage is said to be 138 feet x 14 feet. The door of the house of the plaintiffs and that of the defendants open in the thoroughfare in dispute, but defendant Nos.1 to 4 R.S.A.No.912 of 2006 2 have blocked the passage in dispute by constructing a wall at point GH and a room marked by letters ABEF. Therefore, the plaintiffs and other residents have been deprived of their valuable right of using the said passage for the purposes of bullock-carts and tractor etc. The defendants, in written-statement, admitted that in a suit filed by Pribhu, the width of passage was held to be 14 feet, but it was denied that the length was 138 feet. As per the defendants, the total length of the passage is 88 feet and it meets to the house of Jodha Ram. It was alleged that the rasta starts from the house of plaintiff and ends to the house of Shish Ram, which is pucca house constructed by Municipal Committed and installed street light etc. thereafter there is private land of the defendants, over which they have constructed residential house after getting the prior sanction from the Municipal Committee on 17.6.1982. The plaintiff Mahabir examined himself as PW-1, Chiranjit Lal as PW-2, Chatter Singh Verma, Draftsman as PW-3, who proved site plan Ex.PW-3/A, Madan Lal and Niranjan Lal as PW-4 and PW-5 respectively, neighbourers of the plaintiff, who have supported the existence of a passage, meeting to a passage on the northern side of the house of the defendants. On the other hand, defendants examined Ghanshyam as DW-1, Lila Ram as DW-2, Satpal Singh as DW-3, who proved the site plan Exs.D-1 and D-2. Ex.D-3 is the resolution dated 17.6.1982. Both the Courts have decreed the suit holding that the boundary in the site plan Exs.D-1 and D-2 produced by the defendants does not tally with the site plan Ex.PW-3/A of the plaintiff as defendants have shown their own land on the northern side, whereas there exist another R.S.A.No.912 of 2006 3 common passage. Except Ex.D-1, the defendant has not produced any other document to discharge the burden that he has constructed the disputed room ABEF in his own land. It is also noticed that it is admitted fact that the width of the disputed passage is 14 feet. It was held that the disputed passage runs through the house of the plaintiff and defendants and it start from the house of the plaintiff and meets to other common passage in north. It was found that the measurement of disputed passage is 138 feet x 14 feet and not 88 feet x 14 feet as alleged by the defendants. Such decree was affirmed in appeal as well. A perusal of the site plan Ex.PW-3/A shows that construction ABEF is an obstruction over the passage from meeting the aforesaid passage on the northern side of the house of the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the site plan Ex.D-1, a plan sanctioned by Municipal Committee. It shows the property of the applicant i.e. Chhaju Ram on the northern side of the site plan. The said site plan does not disclose the other constructions of the neighbourers so as to draw an inference that whether it relates to the passage measuring 14 feet or that the portion ABEF is the portion in respect of which such site plan has been sanctioned. There is no evidence on record that the length of this passage is 88 feet as alleged by the defendants, which alone would show that portion ABEF is part of the property of the defendants. In the absence of any such evidence, both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that 14 feet wide passage measures 138 feet and not 88 feet as alleged by the defendants. In view thereof, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court on the basis of findings R.S.A.No.912 of 2006 4 recorded by the Courts below. Dismissed. 10.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE