IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3074 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: July 21, 2011. Sube Singh. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Ram Kumar and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Raman Walia, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 18.12.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide which appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 11.08.2008 passed by the then learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Gurgaon decreeing the suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.3074 of 2010 Respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed the suit for a decree for mandatory injunction directing the appellant-defendant to remove illegal encroachment of Rasta Share-Aam shown in red colour and marked by letters ABHGEF in the site plan attached with the plaint. Suit was contested by the present appellant-defendant denying that the construction was raised on part of the Rasta Share-Aam. Rather plea has been taken that Rasta is having width of 5’ 3” only in front of the house of appellant-defendant and that he has not raised any construction on Rasta. He has also taken the plea that he got the property purchased by him demarcated and he had raised construction on the said property. There is no dispute that earlier as well a suit was filed regarding the property in dispute and in the said suit it was held that the property which was shown by letters EFGHIJ in that suit is part of Rasta Share-Aam. Both the courts have compared both the site plans i.e. site plan filed in this suit and the site plan filed in the earlier suit and came to the conclusion that the property in dispute is the same which was in dispute in earlier suit. In the earlier suit, it was held that the property in dispute is part of Rasta. Hence, both the courts below came to the conclusion that the property in dispute is part of Rasta and that the construction raised by the present appellant on the said Rasta is required to be removed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that construction was raised by the appellant after getting the property, which was purchased by him, demarcated from the revenue official. However, when the construction in dispute was already held to be on Rasta in the earlier litigation, it cannot be said that learned courts below committed any 2 RSA No.3074 of 2010 illegality in coming to the conclusion that the disputed structure is found to be on the part of Rasta and that the construction made by the appellant- defendant on Rasta Share-Aam shown in red colour and marked by letters ABHGEF is liable to be removed. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in the second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 21, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3