MANDEEP SINGH Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment three regular second appeals bearing RSA Nos.4042, 4043 and 4044 of 2011 shall be disposed of as common question of law and facts are involved. Briefly, the facts of the case are that plaintiff purchased a plot in Piara Singh Colony, Ropar from Avtar Singh measuring 8 marlas comprising in Khasra No.25/11/9/3 vide sale deed dated 10.12.1979. After purchasing the said plot, a site plan was sanctioned on 11.02.1980 by the Municipal Council, Ropar. Piara Singh Colony was carved out by its owner and a street was left for use of residents of the Colony. Defendant-Kirpal Singh also purchased a plot across the street of the Colony. Houses of Sant Singh, Gurmit Singh, Piare Lal and Gurcharan Dass were abut on the said road. All residents of Piara Singh Colony were using said street. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by plaintiff-Prem Kaur, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.02.2010 and an appeal was filed against said judgment passed by the trial Court, which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2011.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the street in dispute is a public street and 'Rasta' marked as 'ABCD', as per site plan Ex.P-4, is a common rasta. There was ample evidence to prove that it was a public street and not a private street but both the Courts below have not considered and appreciated the evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the public street is not a subject matter of sale and a wrong finding has been given by both the Courts that after execution of sale deed dated 27.11.2002, Kirpal Singh and Jasmer Singh etc. were given exclusive rights in 11 feet wide street by Pritam Kaur. The site plan, which was duly, sanctioned by Municipal Council, Ropar, has not been considered by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that both the Courts below have given a detailed reasoned finding and on the basis of evidence available on the record, street in dispute was found to be public street.

(3.) ON perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, no legal infirmity has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant and even no substantial question of law has arisen out, which requires consideration by this Court. Hence, appeals being devoid of any merit are dismissed.