Jaskaran Singh Vs Gurdev Singh

¶1

Page 1 of 8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 RSA-5614-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.01.2025

Jaskaran Singh

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Gurdev Singh ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:Mr. B.S. Aulakh, Advocat e for the appellant. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. The defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the responden t /plaintiff has been decreed.

¶7

The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant f rom installing/opening gate towards th e private street of the plaintiff w hich leads to the house of the plaintiff sh o wn in the site plan as ABCD a n d in Pink Colour under Khasra No.563/1, Khata No.753/1142 area of v i llage Channu, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide copy of Ja m abandi for the year 2014-15, illegally an d forcibly without once for all. T he said suit was decreed vide judgment a nd decree dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malout; which wa s duly affirmed by the learned first Appell a te Court/District Judge, Sri Mu k tsar Sahib vide judgment and

¶8

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶9

Page 2 of 8

¶10

decree dat e d 12.04.2019 passed in CA No.34 of 02.04.2018 filed by the appellant/ d efendant.

¶11

Learned counsel for th e appellant inter alia submits that in pas s ing the impugned judgments, t h e learned Courts below failed to appreci a te that the revenue record is c o ntrary to the pleadings made in the suit regarding the identification of the property. It is submitted that the pl a intiff/respondent had filed the suit regarding property vested in Khasra N o.563/1 whereas the revenue record placed on record by the plaintiff sh o ws the same is situated in different Khasra No.563/3.

¶12

It is further submitted that the Government has constructe d the street in dispute but incor r ect inference has been drawn by the Co u rts below regarding the sam e . The learned Courts below failed to a p preciate that the government used to construct the public street whi c h was meant for public; and therefore, the appellant had every right to use the said street. The lear n ed Courts below have passed the impug n ed judgments in a very casual manner without appreciating the eviden c e. Undue weightage has been given to the oral statements. Reliance h a s been wrongly placed upon the cross-examination of the appellant/ d efendant who is a rustic villa g er while not appreciating the document a ry evidence which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 5. No other argument is rai s ed on behalf of the appellant.

¶13

I have heard learned c o unsel for the appellant and perused th e case file in great detail.

¶14

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

Page 3 of 8

¶16

Briefly stated the case o f the respondent/plaintiff as set out in t he plaint is that since long, h e is resident of t he suit house which falls in the Khasra No. 563/1. To t h is effect Aks Shijra as well as Jamabandi and rough site plan are also a ttached. It has been further submitted t hat there is a private street w h ich leads to the home of the plaintiff fr o m main road shown in the pin k colour and marked as ABCD.

¶17

The said s t reet is private street which i s kept by the plaintiff for his domestic u se only and the plaintiff left th e said area of the street from the land o f his ownership which is runni n g at the spot since last more than 40 years without any hindrance and the plaintiff is using the said street since its inception for ingress an d outgress to his house. The house of t h e defendant is adjoining to t h e house of the plaintiff. The main gate o f the house of the defendant o pened towards the main road fully show n in the rough site plan. The d e fendant has no concern with the privat e street shown as ABCD. Now with his ulterior motive the defendant illegally, forcibly intended to install/open the gate towards the private street of the plaintiff shown i n pink colour for which he has no right. Plaintiff requested the defendan t not to install/open main gate of his house in the suit street illegally and f orcibly but the defendant has been avoiding the matter on one pretext o r the other and ultimately he has refuse d to admit the claim of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit for perma n ent injunction was filed by the r espondent/plaintiff.

¶18

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

Page 4 of 8

¶20

8. Upon notice, the app e llant/defendant had put in appearanc e and filed written statement i n ter alia pleading therein that the street i n dispute is a public street an d public money has been used on the dis p uted street and that the plai n tiff has no concern with the street. A r e plication was filed by the res p ondent/plaintiff denying the

¶21

averments made in the written statement.

¶22

9. On the basis of pleadings and evidence, following

¶23

issues wer e framed:-

¶24

“1. Whether the plaintiff is ent i tled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

¶25

2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in present f orm?OPD

¶26

3. Whether plaintiff has neither cause of action nor locus standi to file the present suit ? O PD

¶27

4. Relief”

¶28

The four prosecution wi t nesses including residents of the same locality corroborated the versi o n of the plaint. The certified copy of A k sh Sijra (Ex.P2), site plan (E x .P3), Jamabandi (Ex.P4) and photograp h s (Mark A and B) were pro v en on record. The appellant examined himself as DW1; and examin e d Ranjit Singh as DW2 and closed his e vidence.

¶29

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the street in dispute is Public Street as it has been constructed by governme n t funds. However, it has to be n oted that the learn trial court

¶30

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

Page 5 of 8

¶32

in the judg m ent dated 20.2.2018 has reco r ded that even the appellant in his cross-e x amination has admitted that:

¶33

“16....However, in his cross-exa m ination he admitted that the ownership of his land is still i n the name of his father. He f urther admitted that iron gate which shown in the photograph at Mark A, is inst a lled in their land. He further admitted that one portion of t heir land is abutted to some mettled road. He further submi t ted that the street in question leads to the house of the plai n tiff Gurdev Singh. He further admitted that the whole estat e including land and house, is vested in plaintiff Gurdev Singh after the death of Surjit Kaur. He further admitted that street in question is not with land of his ownership. He further admi t ted that he has not placed on f ile any document through whi c h it can be proved that street in question is public street. He f urther admitted that he does not know whether any writing i ssued by Panchayat is correct or not. …………

¶34

17. The nature of the street in question is also not known to the defendant. Defendant is a lso admitting that street in question has no street with land of his ownership. He further admitted that his land has ot h er passage and already gate installed abutted to main m ettled road. Further from photograph Mark A the plea of plaintiff got strengthened. Thus, if the street in question o nly leads to the house of the plaintiff then no other person except plaintiff has right the same. Moreover, defendant ad m itted in his cross-examination that he cannot tell whether th e street in question is public or private. This fact is also goes i n to favour of the plaintiff that defendant already have its gate/ passage abutted to main gate. This fact is also admitt e d that since his child hood,

¶35

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

Page 6 of 8

¶37

plaintiff is residing in the sam e house. If defendant succeeds in opening the gate in the priva t e street by the plaintiff then it would amount direct interference in the house of plaintiff, therefore, the case is made o ut in favour of the plaintiff. Further if no injunction is gra n ted then plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money.”

¶38

The aforesaid judgment a nd decree was challenged by the appell a nt before the learned District J u dge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, which vide the i m pugned judgment and decree dated 12.4.2019, gave the following findings: -

¶39

“19. Defendant Jaskaran Sin g h while stepping into the witness box as DW1 has adm i tted in his cross-examination that street in question is not o n the land of his ownership. He has further admitted that his l a nd has other passage and he had already i nstalled gate whi c h is abutting to main mettled road. The defendant has not specifically denied that the street in question is a private s treet and has stated that he could not tell whether the s t reet in question is public or private. He has categorically st a ted that it was correct that he had not placed on judicial fi l e any such document which proves that street in dispute is a public street. He has further stated that it was correct that only Sarpanch, Nambardar, Panch etc. could disclose whet h er street is private or public. He has admitted that he enters in his plot through gate shown in Photograph which is M ark A and also through back side of the street. So from statement of DW1 defendant J askaran Singh it is evident th a t the gate of his house opens

¶40

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

Page 7 of 8

¶42

on the mettled road and thus h e is having the other passage f or entering in his house, whi c h lends corroboration to the case of the plaintiff, that the street in question is private street of the plaintiff that had been left by him from his ownership for his personal use.

¶43

20.Much emphasis has been laid down by learned counsel for the appellant that plaintiff an d his witnesses have admitted that the street in question h ad been brick-paved by the Government with the Govern m ent funds and as such it is a public street. No doubt, the pl a intiff and his witnesses have admitted the above said fact t h at the street had been brickpaved by the Government wit h the Government funds, but DW2 Ranjit Singh, who is Ex-S a rpanch of village Channu and is a witness of defendant has categorically admitted in his cross-examination it to be correct, that as per the Government policy, all the s t reets of the village whether public streets and the private s t reets, were brick-paved by the Government. So if the street in q uestion had been brick-paved by the Government as per th e Government policy, then no inference from it can be drawn that the street in question is a public street. So far as openin g of the doors of some other houses in the street in qu e stion is concerned, it was specifically stated by the plaint if f and his witnesses that there are no other houses in the s treet in dispute except the relatives of plaintiff Gurdev S i ngh. The defendant has not specifically named any other s u ch person whose house also f alls in the street in dispute an d who is not relative of plaintiff Gurdev Singh. He has admitted in his cross-examination to be correct that he had not mentio n ed the name of the person, to whom he had disclosed in his a f fidavit Ex.DA,, whose house is situated in the same street. H e has also admitted it to be

¶44

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

Page 8 of 8

¶46

correct that the house of brother of Gurdev Singh is situated on the same street. He has fu r ther admitted it to be correct that he has no concern with th e ownership of the said street. Besides that the defendant w hile appearing as DW1 has admitted it to be correct that t h e street leads to the house of plaintiff Gurdev Singh.”

¶47

Learned counsel for t he appellant is unable to controvert o r dispute the aforesaid concurrent findings of the learned Courts belo w . As such, I find no ground is made out to entertain the

¶48

present app e al.

¶49

Before parting, it may b e pointed out that the present appeal is of the year 2019 and notice ha s not yet been issued in the matter. Pres e nt case has been adjourned at request of learned counsel for the appellan t on 16.10.2023, 12.01.2024 an d 04.09.2024; and due to nonappearance on behalf of the appellant o n 24.01.2023, 05.05.2023 and 07.05.2024.

¶50

In view of the above present appeal is dismissed .

¶51

Pending application(s) if a ny also stand(s) disposed of.

¶52

09.01.2025 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge

¶53

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶54

SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jaskaran Singh v. Gurdev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaskaran Singh v. Gurdev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Singh & Ors. Vs Ram Phal & Ors.

Sunny Vs State of Haryana and Another

Amritpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Parkasho Devi and Ors. Vs Mahender and Ors.

Mandeep Kaur @ Mona Vs Parmod Kaushal

Sunita Devi and Ors. Vs Balwinder Singh and Ors.