Nagar Council Sunam vs Amarjit Singh and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant No. 1 Nagar Council, Sunam has filed instant second appeal after having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.

Suit was filed by respondent No. 1 against appellant and respondent No. 2 Punjab Sewerage Board. Defendant -respondent No. 2 has filed short reply by affidavit in the instant second appeal asserting that it has no concern with the controversy involved in the instant second appeal.

Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 sought permanent injunction regarding suit property measuring 602 square yard comprised of two parts separated by a rasta in between. The suit was decreed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam vide judgment and decree dated 17.7.2006. First appeal preferred by defendant No. 1 has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 11.6.2008. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No. 1 has filed the instant second appeal.

Case of the plaintiff is that he has taken the suit land on lease from Punjab Wakf Board. Even defendant No. 1 admitted that the suit land belongs to Wakf Board and the plaintiff has taken some land on lease from Wakf Board. However, defendant No. 1 constructed a drain along wall of the Stadium lying towards the north of the suit land. The said drain according to version of defendant No. 1 passes through suit land. Defendant No. 1 also alleged that there is a road along the suit land.

The controversy in the instant second appeal is narrowed down by the submissions of the counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that even according to the version of plaintiff- respondent No. 1, there is rasta between two portions of the suit property claimed by the plaintiff to be on lease with him under the Wakf Board but in view of decrees of the courts below, the said rasta leading to Stadium located on north side of the suit property cannot be used as such. However, learned Counsel for plaintiff-respondent No. 1 fairly concedes that the decrees passed by the courts below do not pertain to the said rasta and pertain to the suit property lying on both sides of the said rasta in two portions shown as blocks A and B on the back of the lease order Ex. P10. Accordingly, it is clarified that the decrees of the courts below shall not apply to the aforesaid rasta lying in between two portions of the suit property as depicted in the site plan on the back of lease order. Subject to aforesaid clarification, the instant second appeal is dismissed.