R.S.A. No. 4312 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4312 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.2.2009 Sat Pal and others ....Appellants Versus Balbir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal is directed by the defendants against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 24.4.2007 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 6.10.2008. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that there was a street on which a gate had been erected which was adjacent to the house of the plaintiff/respondent and that of his brother. The houses had been clearly demarcated in the site plan. The appellants/defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the plaintiff/respondent had no right in the public street as Khasra No.157 on which the plot of the appellant is situated belongs R.S.A. No. 4312 of 2008 (O&M) -2- to the father of the plaintiff/appellant and a Gali exists towards northern side of the plot and towards western side of the said plot is plot No.159. It is pleaded that no Gali existed between plot Nos.151 and 159 which was the case of the plaintiff/respondent and that there is only a public Gali which the plaintiff/respondent intends to grab. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the house detailed in head-note of the plaint as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from the Court?OPD 4. Whether a wrong site plan has been filed by plaintiff?OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the suit?OPD 6. Relief. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that there is in existence a public street and that the case as set up by the plaintiff/respondent was totally baseless. In appeal, the findings were affirmed. Learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal has contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and deserve to be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and R.S.A. No. 4312 of 2008 (O&M) -3- perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that the appeal is without any merit. There is overwhelming evidence on record to prove that the land in dispute is a public street and the people are using it consistently. PW2 Sunheri Devi, the Sarpanch, has specifically deposed that there is in existence a public street and she also went on to testify that the Panchayat is owner of the street and it has been got pucca by the Panchayat twice. PW3 Mukhtiar Singh, father of the plaintiff also deposed that it is a public street. In this view of the matter, when there is cogent evidence on record to establish that it is a public street, the claim of the plaintiff/respondent was rightly negatived by the Courts below. In any eventuality, these are findings of fact which cannot be interfered with in the regular second appeal. No substantial question of law arises for the determination of this Court. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 5.2.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss