R.S.A. No. 1485 of 2006 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1485 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.1.2011 Fateh Ram and others ......Appellants Versus Ram Kumar and others .......Respondents ********* CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the appellants. None for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction that defendants No.1 to 4 be restrained from obstructing or raising any construction over the suit land. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that plaintiff was owner in possession of land measuring 2 kanal, 10 marlas bearing khasra No.25/2. 8 marlas of land out of the said khasra number had been sold to defendant No.5 (proforma defendant). Defendants No.1 to 4 claimed ownership of khasra No.25/1, which was situated on the other side of the road and were threatening to raise construction over the land belonging to the plaintiffs. R.S.A. No. 1485 of 2006 (O&M) 2 Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants No.2 to 4, in their written statement, averred that the suit land adjoined a pucca road on the western side. It was denied that the land bearing khasra No.25/2 had been partitioned or that defendant No.5 owned the land adjoining the phirni. Defendants were owner in possession of land bearing khasra No.13//25/1. Defendants had not raised construction over the land owned by the plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and owner of land mentioned in para no.1 of plaint ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for injunction as prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not within limitation ? OPD 4. Relief.” The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.9.2002 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Defendants No.1 to 4 were restrained from causing any obstruction or raising any construction over khasra No.13//25/2. Appeal filed by the defendants No.1 to 4 against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.2005. Hence, the present appeal by the legal representatives of defendant No.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. R.S.A. No. 1485 of 2006 (O&M) 3 The case of the plaintiffs was that they were owner in possession of khasra No.13//25/2. As per Ex.P-1, 2 kanal, 10 marlas of land out of khasra No.13//25/2 was sold by Tek Ram and Giasi to plaintiff Ram Kumar. A perusal of Ex.P-2 aks-shajra reveals that khasra No.13//25/2 is situated on one side of the road, whereas khasra No.13//25/1 is situated on the other side of the road. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly discarded the demarcation report as it was against the record. The defendants cannot raise construction over the land owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 20, 2011 Anand