R.S.A.No.1738 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1738 of 2008 Date of Decision : 09.07.2009 Smt. Savitri Devi and Another ...Appellants Versus Rajinder and Others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with 12' wide street towards the northern side of the house purchased by the plaintiffs, was decreed. Banwari Lal, father of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and husband of plaintiff No.3 and father of proforma defendant Nos.4 and 5, purchased a residential house as described in the plaint, vide registered sale deed dated 18.3.1968. It is the case of the plaintiffs that there was 12' wide street towards northern side of the said house and after the street, there is house of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The said defendants intend to encroach upon the said street, shown as red colour in the site plan and, therefore, the plaintiffs sought permanent injunction by filing the present suit. The defendants asserted that they have purchased the property vide sale deed dated 28.9.1979 and that the suit property is not part of any R.S.A.No.1738 of 2008 2 street. The learned trial Court decreed the suit relying upon recitals in the sale deed dated 18.3.1968. The trial Court also considered Ex.D-1 sale deed dated 28.9.1979 to hold that in fact there is passage of 12' towards the northern side of the house of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the site plan relied upon by the Courts below is not part of the sale deed, which could not have been taken into consideration to return a finding that there exists 12' vide street towards northern side of the plaintiffs house. It is contended that there is no reference to the site plan in the sale deed, therefore, the site plan, which is not part of the sale deed cannot be made basis to return a finding against the appellant. I do not find any merit in the said argument. The sale deed and the site plan were produced by the defendants. Having produced the documents, it is not open to the appellants to dispute that site plan is not part of the sale deed. Even if it is not part of the sale deed, the fact remains is that the site plan produced by the appellant, therefore, the defendants cannot be permitted to dispute the correctness of the said site plan. The argument that in the sale deed (Ex.D-1) the street is not reflected on the southern side of the house of the defendants, but the house of Banwari Lal is shown, is indicating of non-existance of street is again misconceived. The description while conveying the property is to define the existance of the neighbourhood. Mere fact that the house is described on southern side and not the street, is not conclusive of non- existence of street. The site plan produced by the defendants shows R.S.A.No.1738 of 2008 3 clearly the existance of the street. Both the Courts have relied upon the sale deed dated 18.3.1968 and the site plan attached with sale deed to return a concurrent finding of fact that there exists street on the northern side of the house of the plaintiffs. Such finding is based upon appreciation of evidence. In view of the findings of fact recorded, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 09.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE