Arun Palli, J. - (1.) SUIT filed by plaintiff was dismissed by trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.05.2010. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was, accordingly, dismissed by learned first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.04.2012. That is how, plaintiff is before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.
(2.) IN a suit filed by plaintiff, he prayed for injunction simpliciter that defendants be restrained from raising any construction or a wall over the disputed land, which in fact was a way (rasta). A decree for mandatory injunction was also prayed for that, defendants be directed to dismantle the partial construction which already existed over the disputed rasta in question. It was averred that plaintiff was owner in possession of Gher measuring 351 sq. yd., situated in Uchana Kalan, Tehsil Narwana. There existed a rasta on the southern side of the Gher and there was no other way/rasta to access the same. So much so, even in the sale deed, vide which plaintiff had purchased the aforesaid Gher, it was recited that there was a rasta on the southern side. Further, there was a house of Dilbag Singh on the western side of the Gher of plaintiff to which there exists a way/rasta measuring 36 feet in width. It was maintained that on 22.12.2005, defendants had constructed a wall 3 feet in height. Hence the suit. Defendants, pleaded, inter alia, that land in question, which was purported to be a rasta by the plaintiff, was in fact owned by the Government of Haryana. The records of rights did not show that there ever existed any rasta between the Gher/plot of the plaintiff and the land owned by defendants, comprised in khasra No. 313/1. Naib Tehsildar conducted the demarcation on 26/27.06.2001 and it was found that plaintiff was in unlawful possession of land measuring 2 marlas, owned by defendants. Copies of Nishandehi, map of the site and measurement book was placed on record.
(3.) ON an analysis of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, learned trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the rasta/way was being claimed by plaintiff on the basis of the map (Ex. P3), prepared by Draftsman Khushi Ram (PW 3). In his cross -examination, Khushi Ram (PW 3), admitted that the land on the southern side of the plot/gher was completely owned by Market Committee. Further, on a consideration of the documents produced by plaintiff i.e. copies of plaint (Ex. P4, and Ex. P5), report of Local Commissioner (Ex. P6) and the map produced in case titled "Sunil Kumar v. HSAMB" (Ex. P7), it was clear that there did exist a street on the northern side of the houses of Atma Ram as well as Sunil Kumar. However, the map (Ex. P3) did not show any such street on the northern side of the house of Atma Ram. Thus, learned trial Court was of the view that the documents placed on record by the plaintiffs were contradictory and no reliance could be placed upon the said documents. On the contrary, evidence produced by the defendants, showed that plaintiff was in unlawful possession of the land owned by defendants. Since Khushi Ram (PW 3) conceded the ownership qua the land on the northern side of plot/gher of plaintiff, it was observed that plaintiff had failed to prove his case. Resultantly, suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court.;