RSA No.2699 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2699 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 26, 2011 Jasmeri Devi .....Appellant v. Mam Raj and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.V.D.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 28.1.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dismissing appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 5.5.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, vide which suit filed by her was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from blocking or making any obstructions in the rasta, bearing khasra No.28//18/2 measuring 6 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of Village Chhappar Mansoorpur, H.B.No.443, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar as per jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 by way of raising any sort of construction, changing the existing position of the same, digging or putting earth therein and for RSA No.2699 of 2011(O&M) -2- mandatory injunction directing respondents-defendants to remove the malba etc. of construction and to restore the passage to its original position. On notice being issued, respondents-defendants had taken the specific plea that she is not entitled to any specific passage through khasra No.28//18/2 as the same is in exclusive possession of the defendants as co- sharers and hence, they are having right to raise construction over the same. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that she is having no other rasta for going to her land which was purchased by her from previous co-owner and that after purchase, she became the co-sharer in khasra No.28//18 to the extent of share purchased by her. However, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that in the sale deed it has not been mentioned that there is a rasta as alleged by present appellant-plaintiff. There is no recital that there is a passage towards northern side for use of the present appellant-plaintiff. Rather as per jamabandi Khasra No.28//18/2 has been shown as a gair mumkin bara in possession of the defendants. Moreover, appellant-plaintiff herself appeared in a witness box and admitted that there is a phirni situated on the eastern side of her property and that she is also having Gadda khad situated within the phirni and the rasta in dispute. She has also admitted that sons of defendants have already raised the construction of two houses, cattle shed and also installed a tubewell and that there is a rasta from the plots of Om Parkash etc. to the house of Sukhbir Singh. She has also admitted that there RSA No.2699 of 2011(O&M) -3- is a construction of wall by Mam Chand etc. adjacent to the southern side. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 26.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge