IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 Arun Kumar Bharat Bhushan CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. and decrees of the injunction filed by the appellant vide judgment and decree dated 05.08.2016 plaintiff was partly allowed by the “...defendants are hereinafter restrained ingress of general public including that of plaintiff from the rasta which vest in Municipal Committee as depicted in site plan annexed with sale deeds Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 and also mentioned in the aforesaid sale deed to be Municipal Committee gali 34 feet on the northern side of the suit property. The remaining suit of plaintiff has been rightly dismissed by the court...”. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vs. Bharat Bhushan & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgments and decrees of the ld. Courts below whereby the suit filed by the appellant has been dismissed by vide judgment and decree dated 05.08.2016 plaintiff was partly allowed by the ld. 1st Appellate Court to the extent that ants are hereinafter restrained from interfering in the egress and ingress of general public including that of plaintiff from the rasta which vest in Municipal Committee as depicted in site plan annexed with sale deeds Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 and also mentioned in the aforesaid sale deed to be unicipal Committee gali 34 feet on the northern side of the suit property. The remaining suit of plaintiff has been rightly dismissed by the p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-712-2022(O&M) Date of decision: 06.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate is in second appeal against the judgments Courts below whereby the suit for permanent has been dismissed by the ld. trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.08.2016. The appeal filed by the Appellate Court to the extent that from interfering in the egress and ingress of general public including that of plaintiff from the rasta which vest in Municipal Committee as depicted in site plan annexed with sale deeds Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 and also mentioned in the aforesaid sale deed to be unicipal Committee gali 34 feet on the northern side of the suit property. The remaining suit of plaintiff has been rightly dismissed by the ld. lower 8 is in second appeal against the judgments permanent trial Court . The appeal filed by the Appellate Court to the extent that from interfering in the egress and ingress of general public including that of plaintiff from the rasta which vest in Municipal Committee as depicted in site plan annexed with sale deeds Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 and also mentioned in the aforesaid sale deed to be unicipal Committee gali 34 feet on the northern side of the suit property. lower SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2. status before the learned tria respondents as the “defendants”. 3. present suit seeking permanent injunction causing any interference in the shown in the red colour with letters ABCD in the site plan the owner in possession of the same. 4. along with his brother is in forefathers. The plot has been shown with red colour with letters ABCD in the site plan bounded as North Dayal, East- Mohalla Nemri Niche, was running an electrical workshop. After the death of his father plaintiff is running the workshop. The door of the house of plaintiff opens in the plaintiff's plot which is the only rasta for ingress and egress. A civil suit for permanent injunct Kumar Vs. Om Parkash and others” dismissed on the ground that neither plaintiff nor defendants could prove their ownership over the property in dispute. The appeal against suit no.1154/604 of 1994/2000 were dismissed. The defendants The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “ respondents as the “defendants”. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in the solitary rasta shown in the red colour with letters ABCD in the site plan the owner in possession of the same. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that with his brother is in possession of plot since the time of his forefathers. The plot has been shown with red colour with letters ABCD in the site plan bounded as North- Rasta of plaintiff, South House of plaintiff, West- Public rasta 12 feet situated Nemri Niche, Mohindergarh. On the aforesaid plot plaintiff’s was running an electrical workshop. After the death of his father plaintiff is running the workshop. The door of the house of plaintiff opens in the plaintiff's plot which is the only rasta for ingress and egress. A civil suit for permanent injunction bearing no.1154/604 of 1994/2000 titled as Vs. Om Parkash and others” instituted by plaintiff dismissed on the ground that neither plaintiff nor defendants could prove their ownership over the property in dispute. The appeal against suit no.1154/604 of 1994/2000 were dismissed. The defendants p. 2 The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their l Court i.e. the appellant as the “plaintiff”; and Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the restraining the defendants from solitary rasta which opens towards the plot shown in the red colour with letters ABCD in the site plan, plaintiff being The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiff possession of plot since the time of his forefathers. The plot has been shown with red colour with letters ABCD in Rasta of plaintiff, South- House of Deen Public rasta 12 feet situated in On the aforesaid plot plaintiff’s father was running an electrical workshop. After the death of his father plaintiff is running the workshop. The door of the house of plaintiff opens in the plaintiff's plot which is the only rasta for ingress and egress. A civil suit for ion bearing no.1154/604 of 1994/2000 titled as “Laxman instituted by plaintiff’s father was dismissed on the ground that neither plaintiff nor defendants could prove their ownership over the property in dispute. The appeal and revision filed against suit no.1154/604 of 1994/2000 were dismissed. The defendants 8 The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their ; and Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the restraining the defendants from which opens towards the plot plaintiff being laintiff possession of plot since the time of his forefathers. The plot has been shown with red colour with letters ABCD in House of Deen in father was running an electrical workshop. After the death of his father plaintiff is running the workshop. The door of the house of plaintiff opens in the plaintiff's plot which is the only rasta for ingress and egress. A civil suit for Laxman father was dismissed on the ground that neither plaintiff nor defendants could prove and revision filed against suit no.1154/604 of 1994/2000 were dismissed. The defendants SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document have no concern with the ownership and possession of plaintiff over the plot in dispute. The defendants Rameshwar Dayal, Om P civil suit no.1154/604 executed sale deed bearing no.1854 dated 09.08.2004 in favour of defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 further executed sale deed no.1504 dated 21.08.2008 in favour of defendant no.2. These sale deeds were executed during pendency of civil suit no. 1154/604. None of the aforesaid defendant defendants are bent upon to take from the plaintiff. from interfering the site plan annexed with the plaint. Defendant interfering in the ingress and egress from the rasta as shown The aforesaid rasta is only rasta for ingress and egress of the plaintiff. The defendants be also restrained from raising any construction over the plot in dispute. 5. statement in possession of the plot in dispute. Plaintiff has no shop over the plot in dispute. No door of plaintiff's house open Defendants have pleaded that Rameshwar and Om Parkash sons of Mange Lal who were owner of suit property vide sale deed no.1854 dated have no concern with the ownership and possession of plaintiff over the plot in dispute. The defendants in collusion Rameshwar Dayal, Om Parkash son of Mange Lal who were defendants in civil suit no.1154/604 executed sale deed bearing no.1854 dated 09.08.2004 in favour of defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 further executed sale deed no.1504 dated 21.08.2008 in favour of defendant no.2. sale deeds were executed during pendency of civil suit no. 1154/604. None of the aforesaid defendants had right to execute the sale deed. defendants are bent upon to take forcible possession of the plot in dispute from the plaintiff. As such, plaintiff prayed that defendants be restrained from interfering in his property shown by lett the site plan annexed with the plaint. Defendant interfering in the ingress and egress from the rasta as shown The aforesaid rasta is only rasta for ingress and egress of the plaintiff. The defendants be also restrained from raising any construction over the plot in The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing in which it was pleaded that plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the plot in dispute. Plaintiff has no shop over the plot in dispute. No door of plaintiff's house open Defendants have pleaded that Rameshwar and Om Parkash sons of Mange Lal who were owner of suit property vide sale deed no.1854 dated p. 3 have no concern with the ownership and possession of plaintiff over the in collusion with each other and also with arkash son of Mange Lal who were defendants in civil suit no.1154/604 executed sale deed bearing no.1854 dated 09.08.2004 in favour of defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 further executed sale deed no.1504 dated 21.08.2008 in favour of defendant no.2. sale deeds were executed during pendency of civil suit no. 1154/604. had right to execute the sale deed. Now possession of the plot in dispute plaintiff prayed that defendants be restrained in his property shown by letters ABCD with red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. Defendants be also restrained from interfering in the ingress and egress from the rasta as shown in site plan. The aforesaid rasta is only rasta for ingress and egress of the plaintiff. The defendants be also restrained from raising any construction over the plot in The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written pleaded that plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the plot in dispute. Plaintiff has no shop over the plot in dispute. No door of plaintiff's house opens in the plot in dispute. Defendants have pleaded that Rameshwar and Om Parkash sons of Mange Lal who were owner of suit property vide sale deed no.1854 dated 8 have no concern with the ownership and possession of plaintiff over the with each other and also with arkash son of Mange Lal who were defendants in civil suit no.1154/604 executed sale deed bearing no.1854 dated 09.08.2004 in favour of defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 further executed sale deed no.1504 dated 21.08.2008 in favour of defendant no.2. sale deeds were executed during pendency of civil suit no. 1154/604. Now possession of the plot in dispute plaintiff prayed that defendants be restrained ABCD with red colour in be also restrained from in site plan. The aforesaid rasta is only rasta for ingress and egress of the plaintiff. The defendants be also restrained from raising any construction over the plot in written pleaded that plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the plot in dispute. Plaintiff has no shop over the plot in in the plot in dispute. Defendants have pleaded that Rameshwar and Om Parkash sons of Mange Lal who were owner of suit property vide sale deed no.1854 dated SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 09.08.2004 have sold it to defendant no.1. Thereafter defendant no.1 vide registered sale deed dat defendant no.2 by executing an agreement to sell dated 24.09.2012 has made defendant no.3 owner in possession. submitted that defendant no.3 is owner in possession of the plot in d therefore, suit be dismissed. 6. defendants ha plot in dispute. The defendants collusively dated 09.08.2004 Deed No.1504 dated 21.08.2008 submitted that on the basis of these forged and fabricated Sale Deeds, the defendants are plaintiff. It is accordingly prayed that the plaintiff being of the plot since the time of his father 7. per the report of the Loc to be owner in possession of the suit property. The rasta plan (Ex.PW3/ submitted that the rasta shown in site plan (Ex.PW2/B) is t for ingress and egress of the plaintiff. impugned judgments and decrees be set aside. 09.08.2004 have sold it to defendant no.1. Thereafter defendant no.1 vide registered sale deed dated 21.08.2008 sold it to defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 by executing an agreement to sell dated 24.09.2012 has made defendant no.3 owner in possession. On the above basis, submitted that defendant no.3 is owner in possession of the plot in d therefore, suit be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits defendants have no concern with the ownership and possession o plot in dispute. The defendants collusively dated 09.08.2004 in favour of defendant No.1; who further executed Sale Deed No.1504 dated 21.08.2008 in favour of defendant No.2. submitted that on the basis of these forged and fabricated Sale Deeds, the are bent upon to take possession of the plotforci plaintiff. It is accordingly prayed that the plaintiff being of the plot since the time of his father, Civil Suit was wrongly dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that as per the report of the Local Commissioner (Ex.PW3/A), the plaintiff is shown to be owner in possession of the suit property. The rasta plan (Ex.PW3/B) matches with the rasta in site plan (Ex.PW2/B). It is submitted that the rasta shown in site plan (Ex.PW2/B) is t for ingress and egress of the plaintiff. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside. p. 4 09.08.2004 have sold it to defendant no.1. Thereafter defendant no.1 vide ed 21.08.2008 sold it to defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 by executing an agreement to sell dated 24.09.2012 has On the above basis, defendants submitted that defendant no.3 is owner in possession of the plot in dispute, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the no concern with the ownership and possession over the plot in dispute. The defendants collusively executed a Sale Deed No.1854 in favour of defendant No.1; who further executed Sale in favour of defendant No.2. It is submitted that on the basis of these forged and fabricated Sale Deeds, the bent upon to take possession of the plotforcibly from the plaintiff. It is accordingly prayed that the plaintiff being owner in possession , Civil Suit was wrongly dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that as al Commissioner (Ex.PW3/A), the plaintiff is shown to be owner in possession of the suit property. The rasta shown in the site ) matches with the rasta in site plan (Ex.PW2/B). It is submitted that the rasta shown in site plan (Ex.PW2/B) is the only passage It is accordingly prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside. 8 09.08.2004 have sold it to defendant no.1. Thereafter defendant no.1 vide ed 21.08.2008 sold it to defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 by executing an agreement to sell dated 24.09.2012 has defendants ispute, that the the 1854 in favour of defendant No.1; who further executed Sale It is submitted that on the basis of these forged and fabricated Sale Deeds, the bly from the owner in possession Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that as al Commissioner (Ex.PW3/A), the plaintiff is shown shown in the site ) matches with the rasta in site plan (Ex.PW2/B). It is he only passage It is accordingly prayed that the SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. 9. case file in great detail behalf of the appellant/plaintiff 10. injunction restraining the defendan which opens towards the plot of the plaintiff as the plaintiff was owner in possession of the said plot. However, it plaint plaintiff has nowhere described the property in question. boundaries of the suit property have been mentioned without identifying the property itself. disclosed number of the suit property evidence, plaintiff has not mentioned the suit plot. no document to show his ownership and possession over the said It was even claimed by the plaintiff that the property in question was his ancestral property. However, no evidence was led by him to prove the same. 11. plaintiff is owner of property describable as B show that the adjoining plot is part of the sai categoric finding of the learned Court shown in site plan (Ex.PW2/B) vests in the Municipal Committee. As such, No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard counsel for the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff for the reasons recorded hereinafter The plaintiff had filed present injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference in the rasta which opens towards the plot of the plaintiff as the plaintiff was owner in possession of the said plot. However, it is to be appreciated that in the plaint plaintiff has nowhere described the property in question. boundaries of the suit property have been mentioned without identifying the property itself. It is only during his cross number of the suit property as B evidence, plaintiff has not mentioned the suit plot. no document to show his ownership and possession over the said It was even claimed by the plaintiff that the property in question was his al property. However, no evidence was led by him to prove the Further, even if it is assumed for sake of argument, that plaintiff is owner of property describable as B show that the adjoining plot is part of the sai categoric finding of the learned Courts below that the rasta shown in site plan (Ex.PW2/B) vests in the Municipal Committee. As such, p. 5 No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant. I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the I find no merit in the submissions advanced on for the reasons recorded hereinafter. present suit seeking permanent ts from causing interference in the rasta which opens towards the plot of the plaintiff as the plaintiff was owner in is to be appreciated that in the plaint plaintiff has nowhere described the property in question. Only the boundaries of the suit property have been mentioned without identifying It is only during his cross-examination that the plaintiff as B-III-353. Even in his affidavit in evidence, plaintiff has not mentioned the suit plot. Plaintiff has produced no document to show his ownership and possession over the said property. It was even claimed by the plaintiff that the property in question was his al property. However, no evidence was led by him to prove the Further, even if it is assumed for sake of argument, that plaintiff is owner of property describable as B-III-353, there is nothing to show that the adjoining plot is part of the said property. To the contrary, it is below that the rasta/public passage shown in site plan (Ex.PW2/B) vests in the Municipal Committee. As such, 8 perused the I find no merit in the submissions advanced on permanent ts from causing interference in the rasta which opens towards the plot of the plaintiff as the plaintiff was owner in is to be appreciated that in the Only the boundaries of the suit property have been mentioned without identifying examination that the plaintiff Even in his affidavit in laintiff has produced property. It was even claimed by the plaintiff that the property in question was his al property. However, no evidence was led by him to prove the Further, even if it is assumed for sake of argument, that 353, there is nothing to it is /public passage shown in site plan (Ex.PW2/B) vests in the Municipal Committee. As such, SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document general public including the plaintiff would have right on egress and ingress over the same. Even in the previous litigation between the parties, it was not disputed that the said rasta vests in the Municipal Committee. come on record that the fathe Suit No.1154/604 of 1994/2000 titled as “Laxman Kumar Vs. Om Prakash & Others” in respect of the present suit property, which was dismissed, as the plaintiff-side were unable to prove their ownership over the Even the appeal and revision thereof were dismissed. 12. further st general public including the plaintiff would have right on egress and ingress over the same. Even in the previous litigation between the parties, it was not disputed that the said rasta vests in the Municipal Committee. come on record that the father of the plaintiff had previously filed a Civil Suit No.1154/604 of 1994/2000 titled as “Laxman Kumar Vs. Om Prakash & Others” in respect of the present suit property, which was dismissed, as the side were unable to prove their ownership over the Even the appeal and revision thereof were dismissed. Relevant findings of the learned trial Court are as under: “13. Plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW1 where he reiterated about the ownership and possession of the plot in question since the time of his father. He also testified about the institution of civil suit for permanent injunction by his father titled Laxman Kumar versus Om Prakash and Others which was with respect to property No. 353 ultimately it was dismissed. Presently, he has given the description of the plot in question but without specifying its number in the MC record, if any. For the very first time, he has given the details of this property in his cross-examination being it B his affidavit he did not bother to furnish its specifications. He further stated that his house is also situated in the property No. B-III-353 and as per LC report he is the owner in possession of the same. Sh. Bhim Singh, Building Inspector PW4 produced and proved MC record about the shop Ex. PW4/A to Ex. 4/C. He deposed that as per resolution No. 260 dated 21.05.1994, building map of Sh. Laxman son of Chandra Dutt Sharma had been sanctioned. He further admitted it to be correct that applicant, Sh. Laxman Kumar had not furnished any ownership proof of the property shown in the exi He further expressed his ignorance as to who is the owner in possession of the property in question. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer the observations of the Hon'ble High p. 6 general public including the plaintiff would have right on egress and ingress over the same. Even in the previous litigation between the parties, it was not disputed that the said rasta vests in the Municipal Committee. It has r of the plaintiff had previously filed a Civil Suit No.1154/604 of 1994/2000 titled as “Laxman Kumar Vs. Om Prakash & Others” in respect of the present suit property, which was dismissed, as the side were unable to prove their ownership over the suit property. Even the appeal and revision thereof were dismissed. learned trial Court are as under:- Plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW1 where he reiterated about the ownership and possession of the plot in question since the time of his father. He also testified about the institution of civil suit for permanent injunction by his father titled Laxman Kumar versus Om Prakash and Others which was with respect to property No. 353 ultimately it was dismissed. sently, he has given the description of the boundaries of the but without specifying its number in the MC record, if any. For the very first time, he has given the details of examination being it B-III-353. Even in his affidavit he did not bother to furnish its specifications. He ated that his house is also situated in the property No. 353 and as per LC report he is the owner in possession of the same. Sh. Bhim Singh, Building Inspector PW4 produced and proved MC record about the shop Ex. PW4/A to Ex. 4/C. He per resolution No. 260 dated 21.05.1994, building map of Sh. Laxman son of Chandra Dutt Sharma had been sanctioned. He further admitted it to be correct that applicant, Sh. Laxman Kumar had not furnished any ownership proof of the property shown in the existing site plan Ex. PW4/B. He further expressed his ignorance as to who is the owner in possession of the property in question. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer the observations of the Hon'ble High 8 general public including the plaintiff would have right on egress and ingress over the same. Even in the previous litigation between the parties, it was It has r of the plaintiff had previously filed a Civil Suit No.1154/604 of 1994/2000 titled as “Laxman Kumar Vs. Om Prakash & Others” in respect of the present suit property, which was dismissed, as the suit property. - Plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW1 where he reiterated about the ownership and possession of the plot in question since the time of his father. He also testified about the institution of civil suit for permanent injunction by his father titled Laxman Kumar versus Om Prakash and Others which was with respect to property No. 353 ultimately it was dismissed. of the but without specifying its number in the MC record, if any. For the very first time, he has given the details of 353. Even in his affidavit he did not bother to furnish its specifications. He ated that his house is also situated in the property No. 353 and as per LC report he is the owner in possession of the same. Sh. Bhim Singh, Building Inspector PW4 produced and proved MC record about the shop Ex. PW4/A to Ex. 4/C. He per resolution No. 260 dated 21.05.1994, building map of Sh. Laxman son of Chandra Dutt Sharma had been sanctioned. He further admitted it to be correct that applicant, Sh. Laxman Kumar had not furnished any ownership sting site plan Ex. PW4/B. He further expressed his ignorance as to who is the owner in possession of the property in question. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer the observations of the Hon'ble High SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Court made in the revision petition preferr and contested through his Lrs Satish Kumar and Others against Om Prakash and others inter sanctioned by municipality on 21.05.1994 during the pendency of the suit. Consequently, sanction of the site plan by municipality during the pendency of the suit would not create title or possession over the vacant suit land in favour of the plaintiff and cannot used as piece of evidence against the defendants. It was further observed that Dalip Kumar PW1, clerk from Municipal Committee who proved the building plan was examined by the plaintiff who categorically stated that there is no proof of the regarding which the building plan has been sanctioned. Thus, it is evident from the testimony of the plaintiff's own witness Dalip Kumar PW1 that mere sanction of the building plan does not depict title or possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. It is correct that plaintiff was depicted to be owner in possession of property No. B- However, there is practically no evidence to depict that vacant suit land is part of Property No. 353. Self serving oral statement of plaintiff in this regard does not carry any weight. 14. As already observed, had the plot in question been the part of B- III-353, it must be depicted in the body of the plaint, but it is not mentioned so. Be that as it is, plaintiff has again failed to show that plot in question is the part and parcel of prope No. B-III-353, even the site plan furnished by the plaintiff Ex. PW2/B does not correspond in material particulars. The measurement of the boundaries PW4/B and site plan furnished by plaintiff Ex. PW2/B are at variance. The eastern side of the property depicted in site plan Ex. PW4/B is slightly slanting towards western is straight in the site map Ex. PW2/B furnished by the plaintiff. Measurement of the boundaries site plans. In this situation, it cannot be said that it is one and the same property in both the site plans. Adverting to oral testimony of Arun Kumar, PW1 he claimed the property in question to be his ancestral property, however, he has p. 7 Court made in the revision petition preferred by Laxman Kumar and contested through his Lrs Satish Kumar and Others against Om Prakash and others inter-alia the building plan was sanctioned by municipality on 21.05.1994 during the pendency of the suit. Consequently, sanction of the site plan by icipality during the pendency of the suit would not create title or possession over the vacant suit land in favour of the plaintiff and cannot used as piece of evidence against the was further observed that Dalip Kumar PW1, pal Committee who proved the sanctioned building plan was examined by the plaintiff who categorically stated that there is no proof of the ownership of the property regarding which the building plan has been sanctioned. Thus, it ny of the plaintiff's own witness Dalip Kumar PW1 that mere sanction of the building plan does not depict title or possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. It is correct that plaintiff was depicted to be owner in -III-353 in house tax registers. However, there is practically no evidence to depict that vacant suit land is part of Property No. 353. Self serving oral statement of plaintiff in this regard does not carry any weight. As already observed, had the plot in question been the part 353, it must be depicted in the body of the plaint, but it is not mentioned so. Be that as it is, plaintiff has again failed to show that plot in question is the part and parcel of property 353, even the site plan furnished by the plaintiff Ex. PW2/B does not correspond in material particulars. The boundaries as mentioned in site plan Ex. PW4/B and site plan furnished by plaintiff Ex. PW2/B are at e eastern side of the property depicted in site plan Ex. PW4/B is slightly slanting towards western side whereas it is straight in the site map Ex. PW2/B furnished by the plaintiff. boundaries is also different in both the this situation, it cannot be said that it is one and the same property in both the site plans. Adverting to oral testimony of Arun Kumar, PW1 he claimed the property in question to be his ancestral property, however, he has 8 ed by Laxman Kumar and contested through his Lrs Satish Kumar and Others against alia the building plan was sanctioned by municipality on 21.05.1994 during the pendency of the suit. Consequently, sanction of the site plan by icipality during the pendency of the suit would not create title or possession over the vacant suit land in favour of the plaintiff and cannot used as piece of evidence against the was further observed that Dalip Kumar PW1, sanctioned building plan was examined by the plaintiff who categorically of the property regarding which the building plan has been sanctioned. Thus, it ny of the plaintiff's own witness Dalip Kumar PW1 that mere sanction of the building plan does not depict title or possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. It is correct that plaintiff was depicted to be owner in in house tax registers. However, there is practically no evidence to depict that vacant suit land is part of Property No. 353. Self serving oral statement As already observed, had the plot in question been the part 353, it must be depicted in the body of the plaint, but it is not mentioned so. Be that as it is, plaintiff has again failed to rty 353, even the site plan furnished by the plaintiff Ex. PW2/B does not correspond in material particulars. The as mentioned in site plan Ex. PW4/B and site plan furnished by plaintiff Ex. PW2/B are at e eastern side of the property depicted in site plan side whereas it is straight in the site map Ex. PW2/B furnished by the plaintiff. is also different in both the this situation, it cannot be said that it is one and the same property in both the site plans. Adverting to oral testimony of Arun Kumar, PW1 he claimed the property in question to be his ancestral property, however, he has SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fruitful that is; it is also significant to notice that the plaintiff 13. 14. 06.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: miserably failed to prove it. He further stated that he has not produced and proved any record establishing the property in question being his ancestral property. He stated that he came to know afterwards that Bharat Bhushan had executed the sale deed of the plot in question in favour o as per MC record, plot in question is recorded in their name. 15. So far as the question of existence of door towards the property in question is concerned observations of the Hon'ble High Court in regular second appeal No. 1915 fruitful that is; it is also significant to notice that the plaintiff himself stated that the dispute arose when he started opening a door on his building towards the vacant suit land. This testimony of the plaintiff himself would depict also no door of the plaintiff's building towards the vacant land. This circumstance further falsifies the version of the plaintiff regarding his ownership or possession over the suit land. In view of the above, present appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No p. 8 e further stated that he has not produced and proved any record establishing the property in question being his ancestral property. He stated that he came to know afterwards that Bharat Bhushan had executed the sale deed of the plot in question in favour of Krishan. He stated that as per MC record, plot in question is recorded in their name. So far as the question of existence of door towards the property in question is concerned observations of the Hon'ble High Court in regular second appeal No. 1915 of 2007 would be fruitful that is; it is also significant to notice that the plaintiff himself stated that the dispute arose when he started opening ing towards the vacant suit land. This testimony of the plaintiff himself would depict that there was also no door of the plaintiff's building towards the vacant land. This circumstance further falsifies the version of the plaintiff regarding his ownership or possession over the suit land.” In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 8 e further stated that he has not produced and proved any record establishing the property in question being his ancestral property. He stated that he came to know afterwards that Bharat Bhushan had executed the sale f Krishan. He stated that So far as the question of existence of door towards the property in question is concerned observations of the Hon'ble of 2007 would be fruitful that is; it is also significant to notice that the plaintiff himself stated that the dispute arose when he started opening ing towards the vacant suit land. This that there was also no door of the plaintiff's building towards the vacant land. This circumstance further falsifies the version of the plaintiff SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document