R.S.A.No.3264 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3264 of 2009 Date of Decision : 09.09.2009 Tirath Lal ...Appellant Versus Sukhminder Singh and Another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the defendants' appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed. The plaintiff claims right of passage over khasra Nos.42//25/1/1 and 25/1/2. In support of such right of passage, the plaintiff has produced Aks Shajra Ex.P-1. The learned first Appellate Court has found that Aks Shajra Ex.P-1 does not reflect any passage over the said khasra numbers. In fact, the plaintiff has a passage on the northern side as reflected in the Aks Shajra itself. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that khasra Nos.42//25/1/1 and 25/1/2 are being used as passage. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that even the right of easement is not pleaded, the same can still be taken into consideration. Reference is made to Balbir Singh Vs. Sawan Singh (deceased) 1986(2) PLR 632. It R.S.A.No.3264 of 2009 2 is also contended that Jasbir Singh-defendant No.2 while appearing as DW-2 has admitted the existence of passage over the aforesaid khasra numbers. Therefore, no other evidence was necessary to prove the existence of passage over the disputed khasra numbers. It is admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that revenue record does not reflect the said khasra numbers as the numbers of passage. The argument that the plaintiff has a right of easement is not required to be examined in the present case inasmuch as in Aks Shajra Ex.P-1 itself reflects a passage on the northern side of the land purchased by the plaintiff. Therefore, in the absence of any passage reflected in the revenue record over the disputed khasra numbers, assertion of the plaintiff that he has a right of easement with or without pleading is wholly immaterial. In the face of the documentary evidence to the effect that there is no passage, any statement of the defendant will not create new rights in favour of the plaintiff. The said statement was not even relied upon by the learned trial Court while granting decree in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the said fact, I do not find that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court are suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 09.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE