JAGDISH SINGH Vs. SARDOOL SINGHSAHURAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order I shall dispose of two regular second appeals i.e. RSA-4130-2011 and RSA-4518-2011.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Sardool Singh @ Sahurat Singh alias Suhrid Singh son of Rajinder Singh, resident of village Sanauli, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala had brought a suit against his father - Rajinder Singh and brother Jagdish Singh, both residents of Chandigarh, seeking a declaration that the land shown by letters ABCDEFGH is a passage belonging to the defendants leading to the agricultural land of the plaintiff besides craving for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful use and enjoyment of that passage by the plaintiff.

(3.) As per the version of the plaintiff, he is owner in possession of land measuring 50 bighas 3 biswas comprised in Khasra Nos.313, 314, 323, 324, 33, 334, 344, 285 to 289, 345 situated at village Sanauli; the plaintiff and defendants have a joint khewat and are co-sharers in joint khata since the year 1954; the plaintiff has been cultivating the entire land and to reach the same, the passage in dispute could be used because it is the only access to his land, which is situated on the back side; the passage in question was provided to the plaintiff to enable him to reach the PAHI; this passage is a natural contour and is higher in level than the other land, so the parties by mutual consent had kept this portion of land as a passage to the land of the plaintiff; however, the defendants in order to harass the plaintiff had manipulated the mutation No.824 dtd. 27/4/1978 and report roznamcha without following any procedure and without written consent and signatures of the plaintiff through Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Dera Bassi, depriving him of his legal share out of the joint property; the plaintiff had been using the passage in dispute as of right and as an easement in order to reach the fields from the PAHI since the year 1954; defendant No.1 who is also general attorney of defendant No.2 tried to obstruct the peaceful use and enjoyment of passage by the plaintiff by ploughing the same, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the suit in question.