R.S.A. No. 1863 of 2005 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1863 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision : 5.3.2009 Ram Kumar .......... Appellant Versus Mani Devi & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Malik, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of R.S.A. No. 1863 of 2005 titled Ram Kumar Vs. Mani Devi & others and R.S.A. No. 1864 of 2005 titled Smt. Kishan Dei & others Vs. Smt. Mani Devi & others. For brevity sake facts are being taken from R.S.A. No. 1863 of 2005. The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit for injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in the street alleged to be the private street of the plaintiff. The suit was contested. The stand taken by the defendants was that the street in dispute is not a private street but is a public street, and is R.S.A. No. 1863 of 2005 2 being used by all the residents of the locality. The plaintiff produced on record the sale deed Ex. P-2 to claim that he was entitled to exclusive use of the street left by the vendor of both plaintiff and the defendants. The learned Courts below on interpretation of the sale deed have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that in the sale deed the street is not shown to be for exclusive use of the plaintiff /appellant. The learned Courts also held that no evidence was brought on record to show as to whether any payment was made by the plaintiff / appellant for the street while purchasing the plot measuring 305 Sq. yards, therefore, held that the exclusive use or ownership of the plaintiff /appellant was not proved. The learned Courts below rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the street was for private use of the plaintiff /appellant and dismissed the suit. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court :- Whether the findings of the learned Courts below are outcome of misreading of documentary evidence thus perverse ? In support of the substantial question of law the learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the present case though in the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff / appellant, it has been mentioned that there is a street on the Northern side of the plot, but no such mention is made in the sale deed executed in favour of the defendants / respondent and, R.S.A. No. 1863 of 2005 3 therefore, the learned Courts below were in error in coming to the conclusion that the street was not for exclusive use by the plaintiff / appellant. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Once it was proved on record that the plaintiff failed to make any payment for the street which is claimed to be private property of the plaintiff / appellant nor in the sale deed it was mentioned that the street is for exclusive use of plaintiff / appellant, the learned Courts below were right in recording a finding that street was to be used by the plaintiff as well as defendants. It cannot be said that findings are outcome of misreading of evidence, as contended. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. 5.3.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE