R.S.A. No. 2713 of 2007 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 2713 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 4.12.2009 Raj Pal .... Appellant. Versus Darab Singh & Ors ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA. Present:- Mr. Tribhuvan Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate, for the respondents. Sabina (J) Plaintiffs- Darab Singh & Anr have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. Vide judgment and decree dated 26.4.2006, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Ambala. Aggrieved against the same, defendants- Suresh Pal & Ors filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Ambala, vide judgment dated 13.1.2007. Hence the present appeal by the defendant- appellant Raj Pal. The facts of the case in brief, as noticed by the lower Appellate Court in para Nos 2 an 3 of its judgment, reads as under:- “2. the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction with the averments that they are residents of village Patarehri, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala and are R.S.A. No. 2713 of 2007 (O&M) proprietors in the said village. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, they are the absolute owners in possession of the vacant plot marked by letters ABCDEFG in the site plan attached with the plaint situated in village Patarheri, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala and bounded as under:- North: Gall Share-Am and vacant land of Raj Pal defendant No.2; South: House of Surjan Singh; East : House of Chaman Lal and Naresh Kumar; and West: House and vacant site of Sh. Jagan Nath. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, the defendants had no right, title or interest in the aforesaid property. The defendant/proforma respondent No.4 had filed civil suit No. 254 of 1987 in respect of the property in dispute which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.2.1988. In the said suit, the plaintiffs/respondents were admitted to be owners in possesion of the plot in dispute by defendant/proforma respondent No.4. Similarly, defendant/proforma respondent No.3 had also filed a suit against the plaintiffs/respondents which was pending decision. In the said suit, the present defendant/appellant has admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs/respondents over the plot in dispute. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, they have been using the plot in dispute for tethering their cattle and putting Kurries, etc. However, the defendants, without any right, title or interest, wanted to interfere in the possession of the R.S.A. No. 2713 of 2007 (O&M) plaintiffs/respondents, hence the suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents over the plot in dispute and also for restraining them from raising any construction over the plot in dispute and blocking its passage. 3. The said suit was contested by the defendant/appellant. In the written statement, various preliminary objection are taken which shall be reflected in the issues. On merits, it was pleaded that the defendant/appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the plaintiffs-respondents and their sons from interfering in his possession over the plot situated within the abadi of village Patarehri, Tehsil Naraingarh District Amabla and bounded as under:- North : Gali Shre-aam 25' South : Plot of Janak Singh, Darb Singh and Amar Singh 25'” East : House of Naresh Son of Faquir Chand, West : Joint passage and thereafter join vacant land. It was further pleaded that the said suit was pending decision at the time of filing of the written statement in which there was an order of ad-interim injunction in favour of the defendant/appellant. It was denied that the plaintiffs/respondents are owners in possession of the suit property. It was further R.S.A. No. 2713 of 2007 (O&M) pleaded that infact, there is a common passage on the Northern side which is 5' wide and the same is not 9' wide as shown by the plaintiffs/respondents in their site plan. It was further pleaded, that however, except the passage, the remaining plot is owned by the plaintiffs/respondents and Amar Singh – defendant. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs/respondents have not deliberately given the dimensions of the plot of the defendant/appellant with an ulterior motive. It was further pleaded that the defendant/appellant had purchased his plot from one Sant Lal and Gurdial Chand vide registered sale deed dated 27.1.1987 for valuable consideration. It was further pleaded that in the garb of the present suit, the plaintiffs/respondents wanted to grab the land of the plot of the defendant/appellant. It was reiterated that the common passage is only 5' wide. It was further pleaed that the plaintiffs/respondents had filed a suit for declaration in respect of the land including the plot of the defendant/appellant. The said suit was contested by the defendant/appellant but the same was withdrawn by the plaintiffs/respondents on 28.1.1988. It was further pleaded that in January, 1988, some dispute arose between the parties and the police got the signatures of the defendant/appellant on blank papers for compromise. It was further pleaded that apprehending some foul, play the defendant/appellant filed a suit on 12.3.1988 which was pedning at the time of filing of the written statement. Other plaint averments were denied and R.S.A. No. 2713 of 2007 (O&M) controverted and it was prayed that the suit may be dismissed." On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 4. Relief.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession over the plot in dispute and for blocking the passage of the plaintiff. Admittedly, earlier litigation took place between the parties. Appellant Raj Pal filed a Civil Suit No. 295-CS/88/96 against the present plaintiff and others. The said suit filed by Raj Pal appellant was partly decreed and defendants in the said case were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellant Raj Pal excluding 9 Ft wide passage, vide judgment and decree dated 17.3.2001. Admittedly appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that in the earlier litigation between the parties the existence of the 9ft wide passage in dispute was established. Hence, there is no force in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact the passage in dispute R.S.A. No. 2713 of 2007 (O&M) was only 5ft wide and not 9ft wide. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. December 4, 2009 (Sabina) tripti Judge