High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ranbir And Others vs Udey Singh And Another on 22 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir And Others vs Udey Singh And Another on 22 July, 2009
R.S.A No. 3382 of 2007                                     ::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



                                      R.S.A No. 3382 of 2007
                                      Date of decision : July 22, 2009


Ranbir and others,

                                             ...... Appellant (s)

                          v.

Udey Singh and another,
                                             ...... Respondent(s)

                                ***

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

***

Present : Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate
for the appellants.

Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate
for respondent No.1.

Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

***

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

***

AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)

This appeal has been filed against that line in the decree of the

learned lower appellate Court whereby the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has

been declared to be the owner of the property bounded as `ABCD’ in the site

plan annexed to the plaint.

The question posed by counsel for the appellants is whether in

such a suit for injunction a decree of declaration could have been granted.

Counsel for respondent No.1 is not in a position to deny that in fact no relief
R.S.A No. 3382 of 2007 ::2::

of declaration had been sought in the suit though he claims that injunction

had been sought on the basis of ownership.

Be that as it may, once there was no prayer for declaration such

relief could not have been granted in the decree. Thus, the following line in

the decree of the lower appellate Court shall be deemed to have been

omitted :-

” The suit of the plaintiff for seeking a decree of

declaration shall stand decreed in his favour.”

It is, however, clarified that the finding recorded by the lower

appellate Court that any person can file a suit for preventing encroachment

on a public passage cannot be faulted and, thus, that finding of the trial

Court holding the suit to be not maintainable which has been set aside by

the lower appellate Court can also not be faulted. It is further clarified that

if there is ever any dispute with regard to ownership of the portion `BCD’

between the respondents, the same will be decided on its own merit and any

findings in these proceedings regarding any issue which may arise therein

shall not be relevant.

This appeal stands disposed of .

As the main appeal has since been disposed of, all the pending

civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

                                          ( AJAY TEWARI              )
July 22, 2009.                                 JUDGE
`kk'
 R.S.A No. 3382 of 2007   ::3::