High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mehar Singh And Others vs Padam Singh And Another on 11 November, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehar Singh And Others vs Padam Singh And Another on 11 November, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
             AT CHANDIGARH.

                             RSA No.242 of 1987 (O&M)
                         Date of decision:   11.11.2009




Mehar Singh and others
                                              -----Appellants
                            Vs.
Padam Singh and another
                                             ----Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

Present:- Mr. SK Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants.
          None for the respondents.

Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants

against decree granted by the courts below for injunction

against encroachment of the suit property.

2. Case of the respondent-plaintiffs was that they

were owners in possession of the suit property which was a

passage and the defendants were interfering in possession

of the plaintiffs and wanted to encroach upon the said

passage.

RSA No.242 of 1987 (O&M) 2

3. The suit was contested disputing title of the

plaintiffs and claiming the suit property to be of the

defendants.

4. Main issue between the parties was whether the

suit property belonged to the plaintiffs or defendants.

5. The trial court decreed the suit. After referring to

revenue record comprising of Ex.P1 Jamabandi for the year

1974-75, ExP6 Jamabandi for the year 1979-80 recording

the site in dispute to be thorough fare of which the

plaintiffs were co-sharers. Plea of the defendants that suit

property was part of plot purchased by them, was rejected

after considering report of Local Commissioner Ex.P2 and

site plan Ex.P3. On appeal, findings of the trial court have

been affirmed.

6. The appeal has been pending for the last more

than 22 years. The appeal can be entertained only if there is

any substantial question of law. No substantial question of

law has been framed. Even during the course of hearing,

learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to

frame or show any substantial question of law.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

 RSA No.242 of 1987 (O&M)                     3




November 11, 2009          (Adarsh Kumar Goel)
'gs'                          Judge