LAWS(P&H)-2007-8-86

OM PARKASH Vs. TARA CHAND

Decided On August 28, 2007
OM PARKASH Appellant
V/S
TARA CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the defendant in the suit for injunction filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Tara Chand. After having lost concurrently before two of the Courts below, the appellant has preferred the instant regular second appeal and thereby questioned the legality of judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff with a direction to the appellant to restore the portion of disputed passage at its original position.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the paper-book carefully.

(3.) ALTHOUGH a serious objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant as to the maintainability of the present suit on the ground that since the passage in dispute falls within the definition of Shamlat deh, therefore, the jurisdiction of civil court is barred by virtue of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. A perusal of the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below reveals that this aspect of the matter has adequately been dealt with by the Courts below. It is an admitted case of the parties that the passage in dispute vest in the gram panchayat and once there is no dispute with regard to the title of land, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of civil court is taken away by virtue of provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act ibid. Moreover, it has been held that abadi deh does not come within the definition of Shamlat deh, as contained in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act and if for removal of unauthorized obstruction, plaintiff has approached the civil court, then it cannot be said that the suit is not maintainable. Nothing has been shown to deviate from what has been concurrently held by the Courts below. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below suffer from any illegality or perversity or that the same are based on no evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the regular second appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.