RSA-2985-2015 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 225 RSA-2985-2015 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.01.2026 Baljinder Singh ...Appellant(s) Vs. Paramjit Singh and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. ****** NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-7154-C-2015 Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 146 days in refiling the accompanying appeal. 2. Heard. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an afÏdavit of Clerk of learned counsel the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 146 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. RSA-2985-2015 (O&M) DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2985-2015 (O&M) - 2 - Present Second Appeal has been filed by defendant No.2 against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein for permanent and mandatory injunction, has been decreed by both the Courts below. 2. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff in the plaint that he is owner in possession of the suit house marked as DAJKLM in the site plan situated at village Kunbra. Plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Ujjagar Singh, GPA of Mohinder vide registered Sale Deed dated 04.03.1983. Towards the southern side of the house, there is a kacha band street marked as ABCD wherein door, window and two parnalas of the house of plaintiff open. The said street was meant for the house of Dev Singh and Bachan Singh, which was situated towards the west of the house of the plaintiff. House of Dev Singh was subsequently purchased by defendant No.1 Sher Singh. It was alleged that defendants are now threatening to encroach upon kacha band street and fix door at point AB. Plaintiff had requested defendants many times to refrain from doing so. But to no avail. With these pleadings, present suit was filed on 13.04.2010. 3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali had decreed suit of plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 23.04.2013 as follows: - “10. In view of my finding on the aforementioned issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching upon the Kucha Band street ABCD by raising any construction DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2985-2015 (O&M) - 3 - therein and from closing the windows and the parnalas of the house of the plaintiff adjoining the said Kucha Band street and further for mandatory injunction directing the defendant(s) to remove the iron gate fixed at point AB. The decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned to the record room (J), Kharar.” 4. The Civil Appeal filed by defendants No. 1 and 2 was dismissed by Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali vide judgment and decree dated 29.05.2014. Hence, present second appeal by defendant No.2. 5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Courts below were in error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. It is submitted that in the Sale Deed, rasta is mentioned. However, there is no mention of iron gate. Learned counsel submits that even the site plan Ex.PW2/B produced by the plaintiff does not show any gate allegedly installed by defendants. It is argued that therefore learned Courts below could not have held that the defendants are encroaching upon the Rasta. 6. It is submitted that the disputed rasta was paved by the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, if the appellant had installed an iron gate or encroached upon public rasta then Gram Panchayat would have taken action against him. However, admittedly no such action has been taken by Gram Panchayat against the defendant. It is contradictorily submitted that iron gate was installed by the appellant more than 30 years ago. It is submitted that photographs produced by the appellant before the learned DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2985-2015 (O&M) - 4 - Courts below show that the alleged portion marked as ABCD is part of the house of the appellant and that pucca street is upto the iron gate AB. This portion is being used by the appellant as a part of the courtyard/bara. The cattle are there and the entrance for the house of the appellant is the only entrance and no other entrance and therefore courts below did not appreciate that the defendants would suffer an irreparable loss by issuance of a mandatory injunction for removal of the gate. The safety of the house of the appellant would be threatened. There is no wall between BC. 7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the courts below have committed a patent error of law by holding that ABCD is a kacha blind street. The findings of the courts below is based upon irrelevant consideration. Simply because the neighbour has been allowed to open his window etc. on the courtyard of the appellant, the finding could not be given that the portion of the courtyard is a street. Another irrelevant consideration by the lower appellate court is the sale deed. The appellant is not a party to the sale deed, it is between the vendor and the vendee. It is irrelevant for any finding against the appellant. 8. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff opposes submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2985-2015 (O&M) - 5 - disputed rasta is admittedly a common public rasta, which is to be used by all the residents of the houses in the vicinity that open around the street. It is submitted that one end of the public rasta ends in a blind alley to the west of the house of the plaintiff; and to the east of the house of the plaintiff, defendant had erected iron gate as a result of which access to the pucca street to the plaintiff as well as other residents in the area was denied. It is submitted that therefore, suit of the plaintiff has been correctly decreed. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Appeal. 10. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file alongwith lower Court record in minute detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. 11. The plaintiff had filed the instant suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching upon Kucha Band street; and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the iron gate fixed at points A and B. 12. In order to understand the dispute at hand, site plan Ex.PW2/B is reproduced as under:- DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2985-2015 (O&M) - 6 - 13. A perusal of the site plan shows that to the west of the house of the plaintiff, kacha rasta is situated which ends in blind alley toward house of Sher Singh. Down the Kacha Rasta, at point AB, defendants had erected iron gate which restricts entry of plaintiff and other residents in the area to the paved/pucca street constructed by Gram Panchayat. Learned Courts below have given categorical findings of fact that point ABCD is a kacha band street and defendants are not entitled to encroach upon it. Kacha band street is not a thoroughfare but is a common street that exists for common use and enjoyment of the persons living in the area. It is admitted case of the plaintiff that kacha band is also under the ownership of Gram Panchayat, which has not been paved by the Gram Panchayat. Site plan Ex.PW2/B was proved from the testimony of PW3 Lakhbir Singh and by PW2 Gian Chand, Draftsman and from the Sale Deed DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2985-2015 (O&M) - 7 - Ex.PW1/B which were prepared by PW2 Gian Chand after visiting the spot on 10.04.2010. 14. Relevant findings of the First Appellate Court as contained in paras 15 and 16 of the judgment dated 29.05.2014 are as under: - “15. Perusal of the above discussed evidence led by the parties shows that version of PW1 Paramjit Singh, plaintiff finds corroboration from the oral testimony of PW3 Lakhbir Singh. Ex. PW2/B is site plan of the disputed property. Therein the disputed Kucha Band street is shown in red colour marked ABCD. House of the plaintiff abuts northern side of this disputed street. In wall marked AD of the house of the plaintiff there are windows and Parnalas of house of the plaintiff, which admittedly opens in the disputed site. Although it is the case of the defendants that they allowed the plaintiff to open the windows and Parnalas in the disputed area with the undertaking that the same shall be removed as and when required by them, but their this version does not seem to be probable one. These windows and Parnalas are existing since the year 1960. According to the plaintiff this Kucha Band street was further leading to the house of Bachan Singh and Deb Singh. House of Bachan Singh is stated to have been purchased by Gian Singh, who has another house towards northern side of the said property. House of Deb Singh has been admittedly purchased by defendant no.1 Sher Singh, adjoining to which Sher Singh had his house. Now house of Bachan Singh purchased by Gian Singh has been merged by Gian Singh in his own house, which opens in the street situated towards northern side. House of the plaintiff abutÝng the disputed site of northern side also opens in another street situated towards northern side. So, DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2985-2015 (O&M) - 8 - this disputed Kucha Band street was rendered useless as the house of Deb Singh purchased by Sher Singh was merged in his own house. Plaintiff is using street situated towards northern side of his house. However, window and Parnalas of house of the plaintiff are still existing in the disputed street situated towards southern side of his house. 16. Further plea of the plaintiff to the effect that there exist disputed marked ABCD as shown site plan Ex.PW2/A towards southern side of his house finds corroboration from sale deed dated 4.3.1983 Ex.PW1/b whereby the plaintiff along with his brother Gurcharan Singh had purchased his house situated towards northern side of the disputed street from Ujjagar Singh for a consideration of Rs. 16,000/-. Perusal of this sale deed shows that boundaries of the property purchased through this sale deed are recorded therein. Therein disputed street is shown to be existing towards southern side. So, in the sale deed Ex.PW1/B existence of the disputed street has been shown. Although it is the case of the defendants that the disputed street is a part and parcel of the propriety owned by them and they are using the same as Bara, but they have not brought on record any document to prove their this plea. There is oral testimony of DW3 Jarnail Singh and DW4 Balbir Kaur, who have made statements corroborating the version of DW2 Sher Singh, defendant No.1. But this evidence led by the defendants is not sufÏcient to rebut the above said documentary evidence brought on record by the plaintiff. Moreover, the existence of windows and Parnalas, which opens in the disputed street sufÏciently proves that disputed area marked ABCD is a street because no one allows his neighbor to open window and Parnalas of his house is ones property.” DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2985-2015 (O&M) - 9 - 15. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts and findings. 16. In view of the above, I find no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. The present Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. 17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 21.01.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document