RSA No. 1549 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1549 of 2008 Date of Decision: 9.9.2009 Smt. Krishna and another ......Appellants Versus Lakhi Ram and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate, with Shri Jashanpreet Singh, Advocate, for the the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction so as to claim passage to have access to the land which has fallen to the share of the plaintiffs, was dismissed. The parties were co-sharers. The joint land was partitioned vide order dated 16.9.1983 from the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sohana and mutation No. 722 was sanctioned. The plaintiffs claim that they have a right of passage over the Dol of Killa Nos. 18 and 19 to have access to the land which has fallen to their share. Both the Courts have found that in the aks-shijra, the passage is RSA No. 1549 of 2008 (2) not shown as claimed by the plaintiffs. It is also found that PW-3 Rameshwar in his statement admitted that during the year 1976 there was a partition amongst the parties and that two acres of land each, has fallen to the share of plaintiffs and the defendants. It was found that the plaintiffs have a right of passage to the land of two acres which they got in partition. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the statement of PW3- Rameshwar has been misread. I have read the statement of PW3- Rameshwar. The inference drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants is not possible. However, if the plaintiffs still feel that there is no passage to approach the land, which has fallen to their share in the partition between the co-sharers as per the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, it is open to the plaintiffs to seek redressal of their grievance from the Revenue Authorities only, in accordance with law. In view of the findings recorded by the Courts below primarily on the basis of the evidence of the plaintiffs themselves, I do not find that the findings recorded suffers from any patent illegality or material irregularity which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 09-08-2009 ds