R.S.A.No. 568 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 568 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 19.5.2011 Baldip Kumar ......Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat village Bir Kauli and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.S.Thind, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly and illegally causing any interference in his peaceful possession. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he had purchased 127 square yards of land vide registered sale deed dated 29.6.1987 and had raised construction thereon. The plaintiff had further purchased another 5 marlas of land out of khasra No.21//27/2 vide sale deed dated 10.3.1992. Vide registered lease deed dated 4.9.1984, Shankari Devi and mother of the plaintiff had got the land R.S.A.No. 568 of 2011(O&M) 2 bearing khasra No.21//27/2 and since then they were owner in possession of the suit land. Defendants were, however, threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff on the pretext of common street. Defendants, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the gram panchayat was only laying concrete on the existing street in public interest. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 16.3.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11.5.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the present suit seeking injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. The case of the defendant-gram panchayat, on the other hand, was that the street in question belonged to the gram panchayat and was being used by the public at large. Now the concrete was being laid on the existing street. The plaintiff, R.S.A.No. 568 of 2011(O&M) 3 however, failed to lead any documentary evidence in support of his plea that he was owner of the street in question. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 19, 2011 anita