IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2171 of 2007 Date of decision: 17th December, 2008 Surjan Singh … Appellant Versus Joginder Singh alias Joginder and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.P. Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) One Surjan Singh preferred a suit for mandatory injunction against Joginder Singh alias Joginder and Mani Ram praying that defendants have no right to interfere in the disputed passage, marked as A, B, C, D in the site plan. A further prayer was made that defendants be directed to remove the gates/ doors installed by them at points ‘X’ and ‘Y’. Defendants appeared, filed written statement, wherein it was stated that plaintiff as well as defendants are having their doors in the street in front of their respective houses. It was denied that the passage was a private one. It was further submitted that site plan relied by the appellant plaintiff is not in consonance with the site in dispute and that the doors are being used by them from last many years. It was further stated that passage is being managed by the Gram Panchayat, therefore, plaintiff has no concern with the passage. Issues were drawn by the trial Court below. One of the issues was whether plaintiff was entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed or not. The Court evaluated the evidence and meticulously examined the same. Trial Court held that appellant plaintiff has failed to Regular Second Appeal No.2171 of 2007 produce any document on the file, which shows that the rasta (passage) shown in red colour in the site plan and marked as A, B, C, D, is exclusively owned by the plaintiff, Sant Ram, Ram Kumar and Smt.Shakuntla etc. The Court further considered that the sale deed (mark A and B), receipt (mark C) do not contain any recital to this effect. The Court further relied upon (Ex.D-2), a writing given by the Sarpanch. It further held that BDPO, Shahzaadpur along with Sarpanch had inspected the spot. It further took into consideration admission of PW-2 Smt.Shakuntla Devi in cross-examination that she had shown the document of her ownership to the BDPO but held that the same had not seen the day of light, in the Court. Thus, the Court concluded that the street is a public street and no body can claim his ownership over the same and defendants have right to have doors to their houses in the street. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed. Lower appellate Court concurred with the findings of fact given by the trial Court and further held that since passage was a public passage, civil suit could not be filed as the land was managed by the Gram Panchayat. Mr.R.P. Singh Ahluwalia appearing for the petitioner has read the evidence and has stated that the evidence should be re-appraised and re-appreciated by this Court. In regular second appeal, this Court is not permitted to do so. Mr. Ahluwalia has further stated that a Sarpanch had stated in the cross examination that land of the public passage does not vest with the Gram Panchayat. Whether this was said in context of passage marked A, B, C, D or the other public passage, has not been clarified. Otherwise also, two courts below have examined the evidence and have given concurrent findings of fact, therefore, no substantial question of law arise in the present appeal, which warrants interference by this Court. 2 Regular Second Appeal No.2171 of 2007 Hence, there is no merit in the present regular second appeal and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 17, 2008 rps 3