RSA No. 3525 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3525 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.10.2011 Balbir Singh ........ Appellant Versus Khachera and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the appellant. JORA SINGH, J. Balbir Singh-appellant preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated 18.5.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.6.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, was dismissed. Balbir Singh-appellant, filed main suit bearing Civil Suit No. 132 of 15.6.1999, for permanent injunction on the allegation that he is owner in possession of plots No. 261, 262 and 263 and co-sharer and co-owner in plots No. 259 and 260, situated within the abadi deh of village Ghanghola Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon. Plot No. 263 is the private and personal property of the plaintiff-appellant but the RSA No. 3525 of 2011 -2- respondents intends to make plot No. 263 as a public thoroughfare by converting the katcha passage into a pucca one. Allegation of the respondents is that the appellant has no concern with the plots in question because at the time of consolidation khasra Nos. 261, 262 and 263 were converted into killas and new numbers were allotted because the killas were beyond the phirni. Khasra No. 262 was converted into Rasta-aam and is being used as common rasta. Plots No. 259 and 260 are owned and possessed by Mahender etc. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as claimed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the Court? OPD 5. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD 6. Relief.” Vide order dated 24.10.2005, following additional issues were framed: “1 (a) Whether defendants have encroached upon plot No. 262 by raising pucca construction by RSA No. 3525 of 2011 -3- brick during the pendency of suit? OPP 1 (b) If issue No. 1 (a) is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to get the said encroachment removed by way of mandatory injunction? OPP” After going through evidence on filed, suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that plots No. 261, 262, 263, 259 and 260 are owned and possessed by the appellant. Plot No. 263 is the private passage owned by the appellant. Respondents have no concern with the same but they threatened to convert the katcha passage into pucca one. He further submitted that as per accepted documents i.e. khasra paimaish abadi disputed plots are owned and possessed by the appellant but as per PWs katcha rasta was converted into pucca one about 2-3 years ago. Main suit filed by the appellant was for permanent injunction. Appellant was to lead cogent and convincing evidence that he is the owner in possession of property in dispute shown with red colour in the site plan but no evidence on the file. Rather PW-2 Udaibir, appearing on behalf of the appellant in cross-examination admitted that site plan Ex. PW-1/A is not correct one. Earlier there was no passage but now there is a passage and the same is pucca one. Katcha passage was converted into pucca one by the Panchayat and the passage exists for the last 8-9 years. Suit was instituted in the month of June, 1999 whereas PW-2 Udaibir appeared on 24.1.2006 that means katcha passage was not converted into pucca one during the pendency of the suit for permanent injunction. Ex. P-1 is the copy of khasra paimaish and Ex. P2 is its RSA No. 3525 of 2011 -4- translation. As per Ex. P-1 plots No. 261, 262 and 263 are owned by S/Shri Thakria, Sarnam and Chain Sukh sons of Hira Singh. Ex. P-3 is the copy of pedigree table along with its translation Ex. P-4. As per documentary evidence i.e. Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-3 appellant has no concern with the disputed plots. No documentary proof on the file that appellant was in actual possession of the plots. Evidence on file shows that portion marked with letters ABCEFGD is pucca one and as observed earlier katcha portion was converted into pucca one by the Gram Panchayat. Ex. D-2 is the demarcation report. Balbir Singh- appellant hads also admitted in cross-examination that plot No. 263 was the rasta and the same was converted into pucca one by the Panchayat. Concurrent findings by the Courts' below that the appellant is not the owner in possession of the disputed property. No substantial question of law is involved. Sole intention of the appellant is to grab the property in dispute. No scope for interference. For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merits is dismissed. October 31, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE