R.S.A. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 18, 2011 Jarnail Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Ajmer Singh and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for the applicant- appellant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Misc. Application No. 68-C of 2011 is allowed as prayed for. Misc. application No.69-C of 2011 is allowed. Documents annexures A-1 to A-14 are permitted to be taken on record. I have considered all the documents annexures A-1 to A-14 for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal. The suit of the plaintiff- appellant for permanent injunction seeking a restraint against the defendant- respondents for encroaching upon R.S.A. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) [2] a passage shown with red colour as DEFG in the site plan attached with the plain has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The claim of the plaintiff in his plaint was that the said passage in dispute leads to a gher/ Bara owned and possessed by him under an agreement of sale with Bicha Ram, the original owner of the same. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that though there was no dispute regarding the ownership and possession of the gher/ bara and the dispute was only regarding the passage/ street having width of 4 feet, the possessory title of the appellant has been prejudiced by the finding of the Courts below on issue No.1 though the defendants did not raise any claim pertaining to the ownership of the gher/ bara in possession of the plaintiff. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff- appellant and gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. It appears that the plaintiff- appellant had sought an injunction regarding 4 feet wide passage claiming himself to be the owner of gher/ bara owned and possessed by him. There was no dispute regarding the possession or ownership of the gher/ bara of the plaintiff but the dispute was only regarding the ownership and user of the public street. As a concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at by the Courts below on issue No.2 regarding the public street not being meant for the exclusive use of the plaintiff as such there is no scope for interference in the finding arrived at by the Courts below on the said issue. So far as findings of the Courts below on issue No.1 prejudicing the possessory title of the plaintiff is concerned, it is observed that since the defendant- respondents had not claimed any title or possession of the gher/ R.S.A. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) [3] bara of the plaintiff, the finding on issue No.1 will not, in any manner, prejudice the right of the title or interest over the gher/ bara viz-a-viz the defendant-respondents. Dismissed. January 18, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE