IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 115 RSA-98-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.07.2025 SAWINDER SINGH @ SURINDER SINGH …..APPELLANT Vs. JASWANT SINGH @ JASSA AND OTHERS …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the appellant. ******* DEEPAK GUPTA, J. One of Plainffs of the case is before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as the suit filed by him along with 2 others (proforma respondents N: 3 & 4 herein) seeking decree for permanent injuncon against defendants Jaswant Singh and another (respondents N: 1 & 2 herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 16.01.2017; and the appeal filed by the said plainff was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 04.12.2019, affirming the findings of the trial Court. 2. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, learned counsel contends that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the courts below. 3. This Court has considered submissions of learned counsel and has appraised the paper-book. 4. Plainffs sought decree of permanent injuncon to restrain the defendants from installing any door or window in the wall marked by point A to B, shown in the red colour in the enclosed site plan and from making any sort of drain in the street marked by point C to D. The claim of the plainffs was founded on the asseron that street in queson is a private street being PRIYANKA 2025.07.14 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-98-2022 (O&M) used by them since the me of their forefathers, wherein defendants have no right and the same is not a thoroughfare. Defendants denied this asseron and contended that two gates of their house exist in the street and under the garb of the present suit, plainffs wanted to encroach upon a public street, illegally. 5. There are concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the Courts below to the effect that plainffs failed to prove the nature of the suit property as a private street. It will be relevant to reproduce the observaon made by the First Appellate Court in this regard. “6. As it becomes clear from the factual matrix of the case, the claim of the plainff-appellant for the relief of Permanent injuncon is founded on the sole allegaons of the street in queson being a private street with which the defendants allegedly have got no concern. This being the situaon, the onus to prove this crucial aspect of the case that the street in queson is the private street of the plainffs, rested upon the plainffs and it is only proof of such aspect of the case that they can possibly be held entled to any relief in the case, but going by the evidence as available on the record, there is nothing on the record to conclude that the street in queson is infact a private street of the plainffs as claimed by them. In support of their claim, the plainffs had examined just four witnesses out of whom PW1 Saka>ar Singh failed to turn up to undergo the acid test of cross-examinaon at the hands of the defendants and his tesmony thus deserves no consideraon at all. PW2 Mohan Singh has during the course of his cross-examinaon conceded to the version of the defendants while admi?ng as correct that Kawaljit Kaur and Mohan Singh and some others had included the street into their houses. To the same effect is the admission on the part of PW3 Kawaljit Kaur. In order to prove the street to be their private property, the plainffs were under a bounden duty to bring on record the tle deeds of their property so as to prove the area actually purchased by them and covered by them under their house to contend that the surplus leA out area is the street in queson, but no evidence in that regard has seen the light of the day during the course of trial. Accordingly, on careful analysis of the evidence as available on the record, I am of the considered view that the PRIYANKA 2025.07.14 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-98-2022 (O&M) plainffs have not been able to prove the street in queson to be their private property as claimed by them and the finding recorded to that effect by the learned lower court, thus calls for no interference in appeal and the appeal of the appellant is thus found to be devoid of merits which deserves to be dismissed.” 6. It is evident from the aforesaid observaons that plainffs- appellant u>erly failed to prove the nature of the suit property as a private street and as such, the Courts below rightly declined the relief of permanent injuncon. 7. This Court does not find any ground whatsoever to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent findings of the facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon the proper appreciaon of the factual and legal posion. No merits. Dismissed. 10.07.2025 Pry (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No PRIYANKA 2025.07.14 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document