IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 109 RSA-3973-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.:05.05.2026 Rohtash …..Appellant Vs. Bahadur and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate with Mr. Deepanshu Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-14188-C-2023: This is an applicaon under Secon 5 of the Limitaon Act to condone the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons menoned in the applicaon duly supported by affidavit of the appellant Rohtash, delay of 8 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Applicaon stands disposed of accordingly. Main case: The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants–defendants against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sirsa dated 01.11.2017 and the learned District Judge, Sirsa dated 19.08.2023, whereby the suit instuted by the respondents–plainffs for declaraon and permanent injuncon, claiming a right of passage by way of easement of necessity, has been decreed and the findings of the Trial Court have been affirmed in appeal. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3973-2023 (O&M) 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudicaon of the present appeal are that the plainffs filed a suit seeking declaraon to the effect that they, being co-sharers and owners in possession of land comprised in Rect. No.112 Killa No.6, are entled to a passage measuring 2 karam in width through the adjoining land comprised in Killa Nos.7 and 8, which is owned by the defendants. Consequenal relief of permanent injuncon was also sought restraining the defendants from interfering in the use of the said passage. 3. It was pleaded that the pares are descendants of a common ancestor and were co-sharers in a larger joint holding. Upon paron of the joint land, Killa No.6 fell to the share of the plainffs, whereas Killa Nos.7 and 8 fell to the share of the defendants. However, no independent passage was provided to the plainffs’ land during the course of paron. It was further averred that the plainffs had been using a passage measuring 2 karam in width through the land of the defendants for the last several decades to access their land, and the said passage constuted an easement of necessity within the meaning of Secon 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The dispute arose when the defendants started obstrucng the said passage. 4. The defendants contested the suit by filing a wriBen statement, raising various preliminary objecons. On merits, it was asserted that a proper passage had already been provided during the paron proceedings and that the plainffs had no right to claim any further passage through the land of the defendants. It was also pleaded that an alternave passage was available and the present suit had been filed with a view to encroach upon the defendants’ land. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the pares, the learned Trial Court framed the necessary issues and the pares led both oral as well as documentary evidence. The plainffs examined Sahab Ram as PW1 and Page No. 2 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3973-2023 (O&M) Bhoop Singh, Patwari, as PW2, and also produced various revenue records including jamabandis and mutaon entries. The defendants, on the other hand, examined Rajender as DW1 and Inderjit Singh Bhalla, Architect, as DW2, and relied upon a site plan. 6. Upon appreciaon of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plainffs had been able to establish that no alternave passage existed for reaching their land comprised in Killa No.6 and that the passage claimed through Killa Nos.7 and 8 was an easement of necessity. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. The appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sirsa, affirming the findings recorded by the Trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that both the Courts below have misread the evidence on record and have wrongly concluded that no alternave passage was available. It is contended that the site plan produced by the defendants clearly establishes the existence of an alternave route and, therefore, the essenal ingredient of easement of necessity is not sasfied. It is further argued that the plainffs failed to prove the manner of acquision of the alleged easementary right and that the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from legal infirmity. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have carefully perused the record. 9. At the outset, it may be noced that the jurisdicon of this Court in a Regular Second Appeal under Secon 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to consideraon of substanal quesons of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless the same are shown to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence. 10. In the present case, the factum of paron of the joint holding and allotment of Killa No.6 to the plainffs and Killa Nos.7 and 8 to the Page No. 3 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3973-2023 (O&M) defendants is not in dispute. The core issue that arises for consideraon is whether the plainffs have been able to establish that their land is landlocked and that the passage claimed by them is an easement of necessity. 11. From the evidence on record, it is evident that PW2 Bhoop Singh, Patwari, has categorically deposed that no passage was provided to the plainffs’ land at the me of paron. This tesmony has remained unshaken in cross-examinaon. More importantly, DW2 Inderjit Singh Bhalla, examined by the defendants themselves, has admiBed during cross- examinaon that no alternave passage exists to reach Killa No.6 except through the land in dispute. 12. This admission goes to the root of the maBer and demolishes the stand taken by the defendants regarding the availability of an alternave passage. Once it is established that the plainffs’ land cannot be accessed without passing through the land of the defendants, the right claimed by the plainffs squarely falls within the ambit of easement of necessity as contemplated under Secon 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. 13. The contenon raised on behalf of the appellants that the plainffs are seeking to assert an easementary right aGer a long lapse of me is also without merit. An easement of necessity arises by operaon of law at the me of severance of the tenement and connues so long as the necessity exists. The right does not stand exnguished merely on account of lapse of me so long as the necessity persists. 14. The argument regarding misapplicaon of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by the Trial Court is equally misconceived. The reference to Secons 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act only pertains to the principle of burden of proof and shiGing of onus during trial. The findings recorded by the Courts below are based on appreciaon of the enre Page No. 4 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3973-2023 (O&M) evidence on record and not merely on technicalies relang to burden of proof. 15. On a careful consideraon of the maBer, this Court finds that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper appreciaon of evidence and seBled legal principles. No perversity or illegality has been pointed out which would warrant interference in exercise of jurisdicon under Secon 100 CPC. No substanal queson of law arises for consideraon in the present appeal. 16. Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are affirmed. The plainffs shall be entled to a passage measuring 2 karam in width through Killa Nos.7 and 8 for access to their land comprised in Killa No.6, and the defendants shall remain restrained from causing any obstrucon in the use of the said passage. No order as to costs. All the miscellaneous applicaon(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 05, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 5 of 5 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document