RSA No.234 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.234 of 2010 . Decided on: February 22, 2011. Karnail Singh. .. Appellant VERSUS Surinder Singh and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the appellant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants-respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the land in dispute and to restrain the defendants-respondents from demolishing/dismantling the construction of the boundary wall of Saw Mill and Flour Mill has . . . 1 RSA No.234 of 2010 been dismissed by the Courts below. The Courts below have found as a finding of fact that as per the copy of the Jamabandi and Aks Shajra produced by the defendants-respondents, Khasra No.1563 is public way which fact has been concealed by the plaintiff. It was held that the suit land is a gair mumkin rasta. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit had been filed by the plaintiff pertaining to 19 marlas of land with description 19/25 share of Khasra No.76//16/3/4 measuring 1 kanal 5 marlas on the ground that it had been purchased by the plaintiff by way of registered sale deed from Gurbachan Singh. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and carefully considered the judgments of the Courts below. The Courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact to the effect that there is a passage of 2 karam leading to the property of the defendants-respondents and that the plaintiff ha raised construction over the passage which had been in existence for the last many years. The defendants-respondents had taken a specific plea, in the written statement, that in the garb of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, he was taking the steps to encroach upon Khasra No.1563 (0-5), as depicted in the Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 EX.R3. No substantial question of law is involved warranting interference in the judgments passed by the Courts below. Dismissed. However, it is made clear that the . . . 2 RSA No.234 of 2010 dismissal of the suit for injunction will not prejudice the legal rights of the plaintiff-appellant to enjoy the ownership and possession of the property purchased by him but as held by the Courts below, he will not be entitled to an injunction regarding any step on his part to encroach upon Khasra No.1563. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 22, 2011. rka . . . 3