RSA No. 3170 of 2009 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3170 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.8.2009 Jagjit Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Kamaljit Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Kewal Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration that the site `ABC' is a park, was decreed. Santa Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-appellants carved out a colony in the year 1979, providing 20 feet wide passage and also a park for the purchasers of the plots. The plaintiffs are purchasers from Santa Singh either directly or through the vendees from Santa Singh. In support of the plea of park and a passage, the plaintiffs have relied upon the recital in the sale deeds executed in their favour and the site plans. The defendants denied the existence of the park and took up a stand that the Municipal Committee, has no concern with the area in question. PW3-Vijay Kumar, building clerk of Municipal Committee has RSA No. 3170 of 2009 (O&M) (2) produced the site plan and building plan of the house of Baldev Raj on 9.10.1991 vide Exhibits PW3/A and PW3/B. He also produced the site plan and building plan of Chanchal Singh as Exhibits PW3/C and PW3/D and that of Subhash Chander as Exhibits PW3/E and PW3/F sanctioned on 6.3.1985. The sale deeds Exhibits P.2, P.6 and P.9 executed by Santa Singh in favour of Ramesh Kumari, Baldev Raj and Chanchal Singh reflect the passage of 20 feet in width and disputed property as park. The sale deed Exhibit P.5 executed by Ramesh Kumari in favour of plaintiff Kamaljit reflects the existence of park. In view of the said recital in the sale deeds and the sanction of site plan by the Municipal Committee, a finding was returned by the trial Court that there exists a street and a park. The first Appellate Court affirmed such finding, but it noticed that Exhibit P.2 sale deed dated 2.7.1979 recites that the disputed site was a park. Similar are the recitals in the sale deed Exhibits P.6 and P.9. The site plans were sanctioned between the year 1979 and 1993, which reflect disputed site as a park. Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the Municipal Committee was the necessary party as the park is stated to have vested with the Municipal Committee. Reference is made to Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, AIR 2005 SC 2813. It is also argued that the site plan attached with the sale deed Exhibit P.2 has not been proved and, therefore, mere fact that such site plan was exhibited will not prove the correctness of the site plan. Reliance is placed upon Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others v. Yelamarti Satyam and others, AIR 1971 SC 1865. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and do not find any merit in the present appeal. RSA No. 3170 of 2009 (O&M) (3) The plaintiffs have claimed declaration in respect of the existence of a street and public park against the defendants, who have denied existence of such street and park. Such park or street may vest with the Municipal Committee, but since the cloud over the user of such park and street was raised by the defendants, therefore, the Municipal Committee is not necessary party in the present suit. Therefore, the reliance of the plaintiff-appellants on the aforesaid judgments is hardly of any help to the appellants. The sale deed Exhibit P.2 has been proved on record. The site plan is part of such document. Therefore, such site plan is also deemed to be proved. Still further, any objection regarding mode of proof is required to be raised at the time the document is produced in evidence. Such objection cannot be permitted to be raised in the second appeal for the first time. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 31-08-2009 ds