Regular Second Appeal No.366 of 1988 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 10, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.366 of 1988 Gurnam Kaur and another ….Appellants Versus Sarla Devi and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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: Mr.Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. None for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for permanent injunction against the defendants-appellants restraining the latters from raising any construction or blocking the common passage marked ABCD, as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint, situated in Ward No.3 Morinda, was dismissed by the trial Court. However, on appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, the lower appellate Court Regular Second Appeal No.366 of 1988 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents with costs. Hence this second appeal by the defendants-appellants. None appeared for the plaintiffs-respondents. After hearing Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the defendants-appellants and going through the records of the case, I do not see any ground which may warrant interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court. The dispute between the parties in this case is with regard to common passage. From the pleadings of the parties, it emerges the admitted position that the ventilators of the house of the plaintiffs-respondents and a door open in the common passage. The drain which carries water from the house of the plaintiffs-respondents is also there in the alleged common passage. The property of the parties was once owned by one owner, namely, Sardha Ram. Sardha Ram had transferred the same in favour of Sardhi Devi by way of a Will. Sardhi Devi further transferred the portion bequeathed in her favour by Sardha Ram to the defendants-appellants. Sardha Devi along with Vinod Kumar had then filed an ejectment petition against Hazura Singh, dedfendant-appellant No.2 and it was dismissed upon a compromise having been effected between the parties. Sardha Devi had thereafter sold her share to defendant-appellant No.1 Gurnam Kaur, who is wife of Hazura Singh, defendant-appellant No.2. This sale was made vide sale deed Exhibit D.2. Obviously, the defendants- appellants cannot claim more than what they had purchased vide this sale deed. No portion of the disputed passage is included in the sale deed. The disputed passage cannot, therefore, be said to be the exclusive property of the defendants-appellants. Vide sale deed Regular Second Appeal No.366 of 1988 (Exhibit D.2), the defendants-appellants had purchased 30 feet area. The defendants-appellants intended to include the common passage by alleging that they had purchased 33 feet and not 30 feet vide sale deed (Exhibit D.2). Besides, Sardha Devi, who had sold 30 feet area vide sale deed (Exhibit D.2) to defendant-appellant No.1, wife of defendant-appellant No.2, had acquired this property by way of Will (Exhibit D.1) from Sardha Ram. Of course, Sardha Ram could not bequeath away the common passage by way of Will to Sardha Devi. Consequently, I do not find any perversity in the findings arrived at by the lower appellate Court nor any substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. There shall be no order as to costs. Dated: February 10, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE