RSA No.3686 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3686 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 12, 2011 Satpal .....Appellant v. Ram Kishan and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.P.R.Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.10444-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.10445-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3686 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 27.4.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 10.2.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kosli, vide which suit filed by him was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by learned both the Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed this suit for a decree for RSA No.3686 of 2011(O&M) -2- declaration to the effect that rapat roznamcha No.458 and mutation No.1269 dated 6.8.2011 sanctioned on the basis of said rapat roznamcha are illegal, null, void and liable to be set aside with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining respondent-defendants from creating any obstruction in the use of passage by appellant-plaintiff bearing Killa Nos.7/2/1 and 8/1/1. Plea has been taken that appellant-plaintiff had been continuing in possession of the land measuring 3 kanal 0 marla as per registered sale deed dated 11.5.1999 and as per jamabandi for the year 1992-93 and mutation Nos.1225 dated 8.6.1999 and 1303 dated 2.4.2003 were sanctioned in favour of appellant-plaintiff and pro forma respondents- defendants on the basis of said sale deed. Further plea has been taken that the property was partitioned amongst the various co-owners and rapat roznamcha No.458 was entered in the revenue records on the basis of which mutation No.1269 dated 6.8.2011 was also sanctioned. He has challenged the said rapat roznamcha and the mutation by taking the plea that while selling the land in dispute, i.e., share of one of the co-owners, respondent- defendant Dharam Pal had also given him right to use rasta of 2 karams width for coming and going to road leading to Shyam Nagar and, however, in the partition proceedings, the said rasta was not provided to him, which was contested by respondents-defendants on the plea that the partition proceedings have become final. Appeal was filed by one of the co-owners, who had purchased the property from earlier co-owner Dharam Pal, before Collector and, however, the same was also dismissed. It has been contended that entire 3 kanals land has been given to appellant-plaintiff in the partition proceedings and that he has been RSA No.3686 of 2011(O&M) -3- provided rasta from the other side. It is also contended that no land was taken at the time of purchase of land by appellant-plaintiff from previous owner Dharam Pal for rasta and hence, it is contended that appellant- plaintiff is having no right in rasta bearing Killa No.7/2/1 and 8/1/1, which was carved out by taking land of other co-owners and hence, the same was exclusively owned by other co-owners. Suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by learned appellate Court. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that he has already given up his claim regarding setting aside partition proceedings. It is also contended that he has restricted his claim only to the extent that he is having right to use passage bearing khasra Nos.7/2/1 and 8/1/1 as the same was given to him by the previous owner vide sale deed executed in his favour. However, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that appellant-plaintiff and pro forma defendants have been given entire 3 kanals of land purchased by them vide sale deed dated 11.5.1992 from the previous owner. No cut was made from the said land for providing rasta. Partition proceedings have been finalised. Appellant-plaintiff is already relinquished his claim to challenge the said partition proceedings. In the partition proceedings rasta has been provided to appellant-plaintiff and pro forma respondents, who have stepped into shoes of their previous owner Dharam Pal from the other side. 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 the learned courts below is RSA No.3686 of 2011(O&M) -4- 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 this 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. 12.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge