In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.4080 of 2007 ..... Date of decision:1.2.2008 Asha Rani and others .....Appellants v. Suman Devi and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate for the appellants. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants. The plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any further construction on the 13 feet wide passage leading to Bhagwan Balmiki Mandir as detailed in the head note of the plaint. Besides, a prayer for the grant of mandatory injunction was also made directing the defendant to demolish the walls raised at Points-AB and CD shown in the site plan attached and to restore the passage in its original position. It was contended that the passage in dispute was used by the devotees for their religious ceremonies and rites. Besides, sewerage line also runs through the passage. The defendant contested he suit inter alia contending that the defendant was using the property for his own use and had constructed the walls many years prior to the filing of the suit. Learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 29.9.2006 dismissed the suit. It was held that the plaintiffs have based their R.S.A. No.4080 of 2007 [2] plea for the grant of permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction on the ground that the passage in dispute is the ownership of the Municipal Corporation and sewerage line had also been laid by it. However, no document was produced on record to the effect that the property is the ownership of the Municipal Corporation. Plaintiff No.1 while appearing as PW-2 in her cross-examination admitted that she had not seen the record of the Municipal Corporation of the area in question. Although, she admitted that wherever there is a road or street it is shown in the records of the Corporation. It was held that no evidence had been brought on record by the plaintiffs to show that the passage in question is the ownership of the Municipal Corporation. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.2007. It was observed that the area admittedly falls under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation and if there is passage then there was bound to be record of its existence in the office of the Municipal Corporation. However, no documentary evidence had been adduced to prove the existence of the passage. Besides, it was observed that there was no concrete evidence as to where Mandir is situated, who constructed the same and who is managing its affairs. Simply by filing the site plan Ex.P.1, it was observed that the existence of the passage does not get established. No one had come forward to prove the correctness of the site plan. The statement of Asha Rani, plaintiff was held to be vague and general in nature. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court, the plaintiffs-appellants have filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants has submitted that R.S.A. No.4080 of 2007 [3] the existence of the passage is admitted. Besides, the encroachments are also admitted. Therefore, it is submitted that the encroachments are liable to be removed. It is also submitted that the other passages to the Mandir are 3 feet and 5 feet wide whereas the present passage is 13 feet wide which is the only proper passage to the Mandir. It is contended that an injunction can be granted against anyone except the owner and since the defendant has failed to prove his ownership the injunction as prayed for was liable to be granted. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, I find no merit in the same. It may be noticed that both the Courts below have concurrently on the basis of evidence and material on record reached the conclusion and held that the property in dispute as per the case set up by the plaintiffs is not shown to be owned by the Municipal Corporation. Besides, no evidence showing the ownership of the Municipal Corporation has been brought on record. Even the plaintiff Asha Rani while appearing as PW-2 though accepts the property to be in the ownership of the Municipal Corporation has been held to have deposed in a vague manner. The contention that the defendant has failed to prove the ownership in respect of the suit property was considered and it was held that the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs and cannot take the benefits of the weakness of the defendant. The findings of fact reached at by the learned Courts below warrant no interference in the regular second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. A perusal of the questions of law as formulated in the memo of appeal in terms of Section 100 (3) CPC would show that these are in fact matters in issue between the parties and do not raise any question of law. R.S.A. No.4080 of 2007 [4] In the circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. February 1, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*