Regular Second Appeal No. 14562 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4562 of 2011 Date of Decision: 21.11.2011 *** Nafe Singh .. Appellant VS. Neem Singh & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is defendant's regular second appeal. Both the Courts below have directed him as well as respondent No.2(defendant No.2 before Court below) to remove the obstruction being caused by them on the passage in khasra No. 837 at their own costs and expenses, within one month. The facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction against defendants on the ground that they have forcibly and illegally encroached upon the passage to which they have no legal right, whereas the passage in question is the only way to their fields. The stand of the defendants, on the other hand, was that the suit passage is their ownership and the plaintiff has no right qua the same and he is having alternative passage for going to his fields. The learned trial Court, after contest, decreed the suit and the findings returned by it were affirmed by the learned appellate Court, leading to the institution of the present regular second appeal. Heard. It is apparent that as per revenue record for the year 1999-2000 the disputed khasra No. 837 was shown as gair mumkin rasta and gram Regular Second Appeal No. 14562 of 2011 2 panchayat was recorded as its owner and as per aksh shajra (Ex.P2) the said passage connects the land of the plaintiff. There was no mention in the revenue record that the said passage was left for the owners of gair mumkin garha khad, as was alleged by the defendants. Even in an another round of litigation defendant No.1 was restrained from changing the nature of the common passage. On the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties, it was concurrently held that it were defendants who have encroached upon the passage in dispute, to which they have no right. There is no room to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below which are neither illegal nor perverse. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 21,2011 Jiten