Manish and Ors. Vs Ram Lal — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Manish and Ors. Vs Ram Lal — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the rasta (passage) as claimed in para No.5 of the suit was used by the plaintiff as passage for approaching the land bearing Khasra No.116/25, 24/2, situated at Village Dhand? +4 more

Court's answer

Both Courts have concurrently found that the passage 2 Karams wide, leading from East to West through land bearing Khasra No.116-25, 24/2, was in existence.

Ratio / Principle

Both Courts also found that there was no other passage leading to the land of the plaintiff-respondent.

Key takeaways

The oral testimony (PW-3 Sahab Ram, village Panch, and PW-4 Uggarsain, Halqa Patwari, who produced the Aks Shajra) established that no other passage was available to the plaintiff-respondent and that the 2-Karams-wide passage had been used by him for over 45 years.ratio¶33
Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants was unable to convince this Court that there is any other passage from which the plaintiff-respondent had access to his land.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Alka Sarin, J., oral, 18.07.2025) dismissed the defendant-appellants' (Manish and others) regular second appeal and affirmed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court (judgment and decree dated 19.12.2016) and the First Appellate Court (judgment and decree dated 16.05.2018), whereby plaintiff Ram Lal's suit for permanent injunction was decreed: a 2-Karams-wide passage leading from East to West through the appellants' land (Khasra Nos.116/25, 24/2, Village Dhand, Tehsil and District Fatehabad) was in existence, had been used by the plaintiff for over 45 years to approach his own land (Khasra Nos.116/23, 22/2, 18, 19/1), and no other passage was available. Testimony of PW-3 (Sahab Ram, village Panch) and PW-4 (Uggarsain, Halqa Patwari, with the Aks Shajra) corroborated the absence of any alternative access, and counsel for the appellants could point to none. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arose; the appeal was dismissed and pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

105 RSA-754-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 18.07.2025 MANISH AND ORS .... Appellants

VERSUS

RAM LAL .... Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present : Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the appellants.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2018 passed by the learned First Appellant Court.

Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffrespondent herein filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that the defendant-appellants be restrained from creating any forcible or illegal obstruction in the use of land 2 Karams in width in South side leading from East to West out of the land bearing Khasra Nos.116/25, 24/2 situated in Village Dhand, Tehsil and District Fatehabad and from closing the same since the passage is being used by the plaintiff-respondent for the purpose of approaching his land bearing Khasra Nos.116/23, 22/2, 18, 19/1 situated in Village Dhand, Tehsil and District Fatehabad for the last more than 45 years. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff-respondent is the grandson of

AMAN JAIN 2025.07.21 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

105 RSA-754-2019 (O&M) -2-

Sukh Ram and that defendants-appellants No.1 to 5 are the great grandson/grandsons of Sukh Ram. Defendant-appellants No.6 and 7 are the wives of grandsons of Sukh Ram and that they all are from one and the same family. It was further the case set up that Sukh Ram was owner in possession of the land situated in Village Dhand, Tehsil and District Fatehabad and that after his death the land was inherited by his three sons, namely, Hardayal, Mani Ram and Surja. After the death of Mani Ram, the land was inherited by the plaintiff-respondent and his brother, namely, Devi Lal. Hardayal also died and his share was inherited by the defendant-appellants/their predecessors to the extent of their share and presently the defendant-appellants are owners in possession of the land left behind by Hardayal. It was further averred that about 45 years ago, land owned and possessed by Sukh Ram was partitioned by his legal heirs and representatives, namely, Mani Ram, Hardayal and Surja with their mutual consent and at that time, the land 2 Karams in width in South side leading from East to West out of the suit land was left as passage for approaching the land by Mani Ram. It was further agreed between the parties that the suit land shall be used as passage only and the same shall not be cultivated in any manner. The defendant-appellants were bent upon in creating obstruction for the plaintiff-respondent to use the suit land as passage and also threatened him to close the same. Hence, the present suit.

Upon notice, the defendant-appellants appeared and filed joint written statement raising various preliminary objections regarding falsity and frivolity of the suit, locus standi , cause of action and the suit being not maintainable in the present form. On merits it was stated that the suit land was

AMAN JAIN 2025.07.21 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

RSA-754-2019 (O&M)

105

-3-

cultivated land and no rasta was in existence on the same and that the plaintiffrespondent never used the same as rasta . It was further stated that the same was partitioned vide rapat rojnamcha No.403 dated 31.08.1968 as per which land bearing Khasra Nos.116/25 (8-0), 24/2(5-10) came to the share of Hardayal (predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-appellants) and land bearing Khasra Nos.116/24/1 (2-10) came to the share of Mani Ram (father of the plaintiff-respondent). It was denied that any rasta was existing in the suit land and that the plaintiff-respondent has no right to claim rasta over the suit land.

Replication was not filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

Whether the rasta (passage) as claimed in para No.5

of the suit was used by plaintiff as passage for approaching the land bearing Khasra No.116/25, 24/2, situated at Village Dhand ? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as claimed in the head note, on the basis of mutual agreement among the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff and defendant ? OPP

Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hand

? OPD

Relief.

The Trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated

19.12.2016 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. Aggrieved by the

AMAN JAIN 2025.07.21 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

105 RSA-754-2019 (O&M) -4-

same an appeal was preferred by the defendant-appellants which appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.05.2018. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the defendantappellants.

Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would contend that no passage was left by the parties, as alleged by the plaintiff-respondent, at the time of partition of the property between the three sons of Sukh Ram. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the partition proceedings do not reveal any such passage. It is still further contended that the land through which it is alleged that the passage was provided, exclusively belongs to the defendant-appellants.

Heard.

In the present case both the Courts have concurrently found that the passage 2 Karams leading from East to West through land bearing Khasra No.116-25, 24/2 was in existence. It was also found that there was no other passage leading to the land of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiffrespondent produced Sahab Ram (PW-3), who was the Panch of Village Dhanda where the land is situated. The said witness disclosed that the 2 Karams wide passage was being used by the plaintiff-respondent for approaching his land. He also stated that there was no other passage available to the plaintiff-respondent and that the said passage had been used for over a period of 45 years. Another witness, namely, Uggarsain (PW-4), Halqa Patwari of Village Dhand also stepped into the witness box and produced a copy of the Aks Shajra . He deposed that as per the Aks Shajra , there is no

AMAN JAIN 2025.07.21 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

105 RSA-754-2019 (O&M)

-5-

other passage available to approach the land belonging to the plaintiffrespondent. In view of the statements of the said two witnesses, where it was clearly stated that there was no other passage available with the plaintiffrespondent for approaching his land, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit and the appeal was rightly dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has not been able to convince this Court that there is any other passage from which the plaintiff-respondent had access to his land. The passage has been used by the plaintiff-respondent for over a period of 45 years for approaching his land in the absence of any other approach.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for determination in the present case. The appeal being devoid of any merits is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

18.07.2025 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No

AMAN JAIN 2025.07.21 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment