IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1314 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 2.8.2011 Dharampal and another ...Appellants Versus Gram Panchayat Gudhan and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the appellants *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Rohtak vide which appeal filed by the present plaintiffs- appellants against the judgment and decree dated 3.6.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Rohtak dismissing the suit filed by the present plaintiffs-appellant, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Dispute is regarding open space in front of residential houses of the plaintiffs-appellants having 22 feet width, which is being claimed by the plaintiffs-appellants of their own property, whereas stand of respondent/ defendant is that the same forms part of the village street and that the same is to be made pucca on demand of the villagers for use of the entire village. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the property in dispute as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with RSA No. 1314 of 2011(O&M) -2- the plaint, was left vacant by predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiffs-appellants for their exclusive use. However, in order to prove the said fact, the plaintiffs-appellants could not produce any evidence except judgment Ex.P-2 allegedly passed in some previous litigation, in which the Gram Panchayat was not a party. However, perusal of the said judgment also shows that the property in dispute has been shown to be a part of Shamlat Chowk and Gali. Hence, on the basis of the said judgment, it cannot be said that the same is exclusively owned by the plaintiffs- appellants. Both the courts after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs-appellants failed to prove that the property in dispute is exclusively owned by them. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below court in passing the impugned judgments and decree. Finding recorded by learned 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 mis-appreciation 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. 2.08.2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE