Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36227 (PNJ)

PARMINDER SINGH v. BALBIR SINGH

RSA/176/1998 · 2025-09-24

Deepak Gupta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

RSA No. 176 of 1998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Parminder Singh Balbir Singh CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advocate DEEPAK GUPTA, J. second appeal against the concurrent findings of the as suit for permanent injunction filed by him was dismissed by the trial Court on 25.01.1996 and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 22.12.1997, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. 2. out of total land of 16 Kanal comprised in Khasra No. 24/15/6 by virtue of sale deed dated 12.06.1978 preceded by an agreement to sell dated 05.05.1978 and had also provided a 20 feet wide pass deed was executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff, who had since expired. It was alleged that after purchase, the father of the plaintiff had raised boundary wall on it and put two gates at point A1 and A2 as the site plan but defendant had encroached upon the passage, which he had agreed to provide as per the sale deed. With these allegations, plaintiff prayed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from closing the disputed pas mandatory injunction to direct him to demolish the boundary wall raised thereon. RSA No. 176 of 1998 Page N: 1 of 3 Pages IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Parminder Singh Versus Balbir Singh CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advocate For the appellant. Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate For the respondent. ***** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Plaintiff of the case is before this Court in the present regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of the as suit for permanent injunction filed by him was dismissed by the trial Court on 25.01.1996 and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 22.12.1997, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. According to plaintiff, defendant had sold 8 Kanal 10 Marla land out of total land of 16 Kanal comprised in Khasra No. 24/15/6 by virtue of sale deed dated 12.06.1978 preceded by an agreement to sell dated 05.05.1978 and had also provided a 20 feet wide passage from the eastern side. The sale deed was executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff, who had since expired. It was alleged that after purchase, the father of the plaintiff had raised boundary wall on it and put two gates at point A1 and A2 as the site plan but defendant had encroached upon the passage, which he had agreed to provide as per the sale deed. With these allegations, plaintiff prayed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from closing the disputed passage as described in the head of the plaint and also for mandatory injunction to direct him to demolish the boundary wall raised of 3 Pages IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 176 of 1998 (O&M) Reserved on: 22.09.2025 Pronounced on:24.09.2025 …Appellant …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Plaintiff of the case is before this Court in the present regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for permanent injunction filed by him was dismissed by the trial Court on 25.01.1996 and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 22.12.1997, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. cording to plaintiff, defendant had sold 8 Kanal 10 Marla land out of total land of 16 Kanal comprised in Khasra No. 24/15/6 by virtue of sale deed dated 12.06.1978 preceded by an agreement to sell dated 05.05.1978 age from the eastern side. The sale deed was executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff, who had since expired. It was alleged that after purchase, the father of the plaintiff had raised boundary wall on it and put two gates at point A1 and A2 as shown in the site plan but defendant had encroached upon the passage, which he had agreed to provide as per the sale deed. With these allegations, plaintiff prayed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from closing sage as described in the head of the plaint and also for mandatory injunction to direct him to demolish the boundary wall raised RSA No. 176 of 1998 (O&M) .09.2025 24.09.2025 Appellant Respondent Plaintiff of the case is before this Court in the present regular Courts below, inasmuch as suit for permanent injunction filed by him was dismissed by the trial Court on 25.01.1996 and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First cording to plaintiff, defendant had sold 8 Kanal 10 Marla land out of total land of 16 Kanal comprised in Khasra No. 24/15/6 by virtue of sale deed dated 12.06.1978 preceded by an agreement to sell dated 05.05.1978 age from the eastern side. The sale deed was executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff, who had since expired. It was alleged that after purchase, the father of the plaintiff had shown in the site plan but defendant had encroached upon the passage, which he had agreed to provide as per the sale deed. With these allegations, plaintiff prayed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from closing sage as described in the head of the plaint and also for mandatory injunction to direct him to demolish the boundary wall raised JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.24 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 176 of 1998 3. deed in respect of 8 Kanal 10 Marla land to the maintained that he had agreed to provide passage from the eastern side up to the point, where the sold area started and not up to the end as is alleged by the plaintiff. 4. was taken on record. After considering the sale deed relied by the plaintiff (Mark A), the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that there was no encroachment and that passage had been provided as per the contents of the sale deed. The Appellate 5. counsel for the plaintiff CPC had been moved before the First Appellate Court for additional evidence but the same was considered and therefore, the matter deserves to be remitted. 6. the file of the Appellate Court would reveal that no such application under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC was ever mo photocopy of the file was even handed over to the counsel for the appellant in order to show as to whether any such application is there on the file, or whether there is any reference of any such application in any of th orders passed by the Appellate Court and he conceded that there was no such application. In the circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is found to be factually incorrect. 7. Court while declining the appeal of the appellant observed in para No.8 of the judgment as under: “The plea taken up by the appellant is that passage was agreed to be provided till the last and where the sold area started. But in my view, this plea is without any substance and cannot be accepted. A bare perusal of the sale deed, copy of which is Mark A, which has been produced not by the appellant in his own statement, but by Ramesh Pa RSA No. 176 of 1998 Page N: 2 of 3 Pages Contesting the suit, defendant did not deny execution of the sale deed in respect of 8 Kanal 10 Marla land to the maintained that he had agreed to provide passage from the eastern side up to the point, where the sold area started and not up to the end as is alleged by Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the was taken on record. After considering the sale deed relied by the plaintiff (Mark A), the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that there was no encroachment and that passage had been provided as per the contents of the sale deed. The Appellate Court affirmed the findings. Assailing the concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC had been moved before the First Appellate Court for additional evidence the same was considered and therefore, the matter deserves to be The photocopy of trial Court record was called and the perusal of the file of the Appellate Court would reveal that no such application under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC was ever moved by the plaintiff photocopy of the file was even handed over to the counsel for the appellant in order to show as to whether any such application is there on the file, or whether there is any reference of any such application in any of th orders passed by the Appellate Court and he conceded that there was no such application. In the circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is found to be factually incorrect. Considering the matter on merits, it is found Court while declining the appeal of the appellant observed in para No.8 of the judgment as under:- “The plea taken up by the appellant is that passage was agreed to be provided till the last and [end]of the sold area and not upto the where the sold area started. But in my view, this plea is without any substance and cannot be accepted. A bare perusal of the sale deed, copy of which is Mark A, which has been produced not by the appellant in his own statement, but by Ramesh Pal PW2 Asstt. of Bhatia Electronics Store, shows of 3 Pages Contesting the suit, defendant did not deny execution of the sale deed in respect of 8 Kanal 10 Marla land to the father of the plaintiff but maintained that he had agreed to provide passage from the eastern side up to the point, where the sold area started and not up to the end as is alleged by Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. After considering the sale deed relied by the plaintiff (Mark A), the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that there was no encroachment and that passage had been provided as per the contents of the Court affirmed the findings. Assailing the concurrent findings, it is contended by learned appellant that an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC had been moved before the First Appellate Court for additional evidence the same was considered and therefore, the matter deserves to be trial Court record was called and the perusal of the file of the Appellate Court would reveal that no such application under ved by the plaintiff-appellant. The photocopy of the file was even handed over to the counsel for the appellant in order to show as to whether any such application is there on the file, or whether there is any reference of any such application in any of the zimni orders passed by the Appellate Court and he conceded that there was no such application. In the circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the Considering the matter on merits, it is found that First Appellate Court while declining the appeal of the appellant observed in para No.8 of the “The plea taken up by the appellant is that passage was agreed to be of the sold area and not upto the point from where the sold area started. But in my view, this plea is without any substance and cannot be accepted. A bare perusal of the sale deed, copy of which is Mark A, which has been produced not by the appellant in his own l PW2 Asstt. of Bhatia Electronics Store, shows Contesting the suit, defendant did not deny execution of the sale father of the plaintiff but maintained that he had agreed to provide passage from the eastern side up to the point, where the sold area started and not up to the end as is alleged by parties was taken on record. After considering the sale deed relied by the plaintiff (Mark A), the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that there was no encroachment and that passage had been provided as per the contents of the Assailing the concurrent findings, it is contended by learned appellant that an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC had been moved before the First Appellate Court for additional evidence the same was considered and therefore, the matter deserves to be trial Court record was called and the perusal of the file of the Appellate Court would reveal that no such application under appellant. The photocopy of the file was even handed over to the counsel for the appellant in order to show as to whether any such application is there on the file, or e zimni orders passed by the Appellate Court and he conceded that there was no such application. In the circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the that First Appellate Court while declining the appeal of the appellant observed in para No.8 of the “The plea taken up by the appellant is that passage was agreed to be point from where the sold area started. But in my view, this plea is without any substance and cannot be accepted. A bare perusal of the sale deed, copy of which is Mark A, which has been produced not by the appellant in his own l PW2 Asstt. of Bhatia Electronics Store, shows JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.24 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 176 of 1998 that the respondent agreed to provide 20 feet passage from the eastern side to the area sold by him to Gajinder Singh, father of the appellant. This passage had been provided by him. It is difficult to interp sale deed as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant that the passage was to be extended till the last end of the sold area and not only upto the point from where the sold area started. The perusal of the plan Ex.P1 also sho respondent upto the starting point of the sold area and gate of the appellant on that point also exists. The appellant now wants that this passage should be extended beyond that gate and should go upto th plot ends. But his claim is beyond the terms of the sale deed vide which the respondent sold the land to his father Gajinder Singh. The respondent is only under the legal obligation as per the terms of the sale deed to provide 2 passage only to the area which is sold to Gajinder Singh father of the appellant. He never agreed that this passage would extend to the last corner of the sold area, where appellant had shown gates in the points A and B in the plan Ex.P1 of his own, extent.” 8. was found to be made by the respondent goes up to the point from where the purchased area of the a starts and as such, the Appellate Court rightly held that the appellant was not entitled to any permanent injunction as was claimed by him, while affirming the findings of the trial Court. 9. concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are found to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. As such holding the present appeal to be devoid of merit, same is hereby dismissed. 24.09.2025 Jiten RSA No. 176 of 1998 Page N: 3 of 3 Pages that the respondent agreed to provide 20 feet passage from the eastern side to the area sold by him to Gajinder Singh, father of the appellant. This passage had been provided by him. It is difficult to interp sale deed as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant that the passage was to be extended till the last end of the sold area and not only upto the point from where the sold area started. The perusal of the plan Ex.P1 also shows that passage of 20 feet had been provided by the respondent upto the starting point of the sold area and gate of the appellant on that point also exists. The appellant now wants that this passage should be extended beyond that gate and should go upto th plot ends. But his claim is beyond the terms of the sale deed vide which the respondent sold the land to his father Gajinder Singh. The respondent is only under the legal obligation as per the terms of the sale deed to provide 2 passage only to the area which is sold to Gajinder Singh father of the appellant. He never agreed that this passage would extend to the last corner of the sold area, where appellant had shown gates in the points A and B in the plan Ex.P1 of his own, illegally. He cannot be legally allowed to that extent.” It is clear from the aforesaid observations that no encroachment was found to be made by the respondent-defendant on the passage, which goes up to the point from where the purchased area of the a starts and as such, the Appellate Court rightly held that the appellant was not entitled to any permanent injunction as was claimed by him, while affirming the findings of the trial Court. This Court does not find any ground concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are found to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. As such holding the present appeal to be devoid of merit, same is hereby dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : of 3 Pages that the respondent agreed to provide 20 feet passage from the eastern side to the area sold by him to Gajinder Singh, father of the appellant. This passage had been provided by him. It is difficult to interpret the terms of the sale deed as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant that the passage was to be extended till the last end of the sold area and not only upto the point from where the sold area started. The perusal of the plan ws that passage of 20 feet had been provided by the respondent upto the starting point of the sold area and gate of the appellant on that point also exists. The appellant now wants that this passage should be extended beyond that gate and should go upto the points A and B, where his plot ends. But his claim is beyond the terms of the sale deed vide which the respondent sold the land to his father Gajinder Singh. The respondent is only under the legal obligation as per the terms of the sale deed to provide 20 ft. passage only to the area which is sold to Gajinder Singh father of the appellant. He never agreed that this passage would extend to the last corner of the sold area, where appellant had shown gates in the points A and B in illegally. He cannot be legally allowed to that It is clear from the aforesaid observations that no encroachment defendant on the passage, which goes up to the point from where the purchased area of the appellant-plaintiff starts and as such, the Appellate Court rightly held that the appellant was not entitled to any permanent injunction as was claimed by him, while affirming This Court does not find any ground whatsoever to disturb the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are found to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. As such holding the present appeal to be devoid of merit, same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No that the respondent agreed to provide 20 feet passage from the eastern side to the area sold by him to Gajinder Singh, father of the appellant. This ret the terms of the sale deed as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant that the passage was to be extended till the last end of the sold area and not only upto the point from where the sold area started. The perusal of the plan ws that passage of 20 feet had been provided by the respondent upto the starting point of the sold area and gate of the appellant on that point also exists. The appellant now wants that this passage should be e points A and B, where his plot ends. But his claim is beyond the terms of the sale deed vide which the respondent sold the land to his father Gajinder Singh. The respondent is only 0 ft. passage only to the area which is sold to Gajinder Singh father of the appellant. He never agreed that this passage would extend to the last corner of the sold area, where appellant had shown gates in the points A and B in illegally. He cannot be legally allowed to that It is clear from the aforesaid observations that no encroachment defendant on the passage, which plaintiff starts and as such, the Appellate Court rightly held that the appellant was not entitled to any permanent injunction as was claimed by him, while affirming whatsoever to disturb the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are found to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. As such holding JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.24 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document