IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.585 of 2005 Decided on : 24.08.2009 Harcharan Singh Grewal ... Appellant versus D.S.Rai & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. S. K. Battas, Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Anurag Chopra, Advocate for respondents. 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers 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? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents and restraining the appellant from encroaching upon the 20' wide rasta near their plots (from the Ferozepur Road). The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether oral self requiring statements of persons having direct interest in the property in dispute can be preferred over a documentary evidence? ii)Whether a vacant plot of land belonging to a NRI can be made subject to passage through by passing over it as a short cut to main road when no such passage is shown in revenue records and passage provided by the colonizer is on the other side? Both the questions are pure questions of fact. Both RSA No.585 of 2005 -2- the Courts below have taken notice of the sale deed executed by the attorney of the appellant. To explain away the said document, the only assertion made is that because of strained relationship between the appellant and his wife the attorney- father-in-law was against his interest. I am afraid it is not possible to give any finding on this question of fact. Thus if the document executed by the attorney of the appellant cannot be ignored it has to be held that the findings of the Courts below cannot be said either to be based on no evidence or on such mis- reading of evidence so as to render them perverse. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that it was for the plaintiff to prove that the rasta was in Khasra No.23 since admittedly there was no rasta in khasra No.24. However, I find that in view of the admitted possession that a rasta did exist it was for the appellant to have got the property demarcated to show how much of the disputed rasta fall in khasra No.24. In these circumstances, I do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and that it was for the plaintiff to have got the said rasta demarcated. Consequently holding the questions proposed against the appellant, I dismiss this appeal. August 24, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE