RSA-1158-2021 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117 RSA-1158-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.03.2025 SURJIT KAUR …..Appellant Vs ASHOK KUMAR …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Kirat Pal Dhaliwal, Advocate the appellants. ****** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Suit for permanent injuncon filed by plainff-Surjit Kaur (appellant herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 26.02.2018. Appeal filed by her against the said trial Court judgment was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 17.05.2019. Against this concurrent finding, she has approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal. 2. Dispute pertains to a wall exisng between the respecve houses of the two pares. Plainff claimed the said wall to be exclusively owned by her and sought to restrain the defendant from making any construcon over the same to take support of the said wall. The stand of the defendant was that width of wall was 13 inch and that the wall was common. 3. Necessary issues were framed and a6er taking evidence, trial Court found that plainff had failed to prove exclusive ownership of wall in dispute. As such, suit was dismissed. Appellate Court upheld the findings. 4. Assailing the aforesaid findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. 5. However, it is conceded by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant-plainff could not produce any cogent evidence to prove the exclusive ownership of the disputed wall. Page 1 of 2 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.03.19 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1158-2021 (O&M) 6. It has been observed by the First Appellate Court that plainff had purchased the property in the year 2012 from the previous owner. However, said previous owner was not examined to prove that by virtue of sale deed dated 05.07.2012, exclusive rights in the wall were sold to the plainff. Not only this, Appellate Court found from the photographs of the wall in dispute that thickness of the same was 13 inches and that there were depressed alcoves in the wall, showing that defendant had also been using the said common wall since long and that plainff had never raised objecon to such usage of the disputed wall by the defendant. So much so, no witness from the locality was examined by the plainff to prove that disputed wall was exclusively owned by her. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to disturb the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper appreciaon of evidence. Finding no scope to interfere in the absence of any illegality or perversity in the findings, the present appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 18.03.2025 JUDGE Pry Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No Page 2 of 2 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.03.19 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document