JUDGMENT 1. - This is contesting defendant-appellants second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.1.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Deeg in Appeal No.18/2009 filed by the plaintiff Balveer Singh whereby the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deeg in Civi Suit No.67/2005 Balveer Singh v. Sukhveer Singh dismissing the civil suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction has been set aside and further a decree of declaration and permanent injunction has been passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent Balveer Singh filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant-appellants with the averments that the house with Chabutara situated in Ward No.10, Deeg, as mentioned in Green colour was in his ownership and possession, which the plaintiff had purchased from proforma-defendants No.4 and 5 Vasudev and Shivcharan respectively, vide agreement to sell dated 13.5.2001 (Ex.2), the description of which is mentioned in enclosed map (Ex.3) and he is in possession since then. The plaintiff also obtained permission for re-construction from the Gram Panchayat on 20.5.2001 and since then, he is residing therein. In the western side of the said house of the plaintiff, there is a Chowk marked as 'Z' with yellow colour and public way which is for the use of the plaintiff and the contesting defendants. The main gate of the plaintiff's said house is also towards the said public chowk and further, the main gate of the plaintiff's house opened in the public way and is crossing from the way marked 'Z', which further merged in the public way marked 'R'. In the southern side of the house of plaintiff, there is a vacant plot measuring 34' x 34' of defendants Sukhveer Singh, Manoj Kumar and Mahesh Kumar opening towards the eastern side which has been encroached upon by the defendants and the same has been made in the public chowk and public way marked as 'Z' and further, one door has been opened towards the western side of the plaintiff's house by including 2' wall of the plaintiff resulting in the measurement of 12' in length to 14' and gate has been affixed by the defendants. 3. 3. It is further stated in the plaint that the contesting defendants' father Dilip Singh purchased the Chowk marked 'Z' with yellow colour and strip of land towards the eastern side of the public way which is measuring 18' x 19' and shown in purple colour, from Moti Lal Vaishya which has been marked 'P'. Fifteen days before filing of the civil suit, at place 'X', the defendants have illegally constructed a Chowk measuring 10.6' x 10.6' at the place marked 'P' which is 18' x 11.6' of public chowk and way. Thus, the contesting defendants have raised the wall in the public way marked as 'R' shown in black colour and marked as 'Y' measuring 28.3' x 6' by constructing a wall which has resulted in shortening the way. Apart from this, the defendants, two years ago, have made a drain-outlet ( ijukyk ) marked as 'Q' opening of which is on the plaintiff's Chabutara marked 'R' which has resulted in spreading of filthy water and further resulted in damage to the doors and causing nuisance. 4. The defendant No.1 Sukhveer Singh and defendant No.3 Mahesh Kumar filed the written statement stating therein that the green colour entire property is not in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and further that the plaintiff has extended the property towards the North-Eastern side. The eastern side Chabutara is not in the public way and the plaintiff has constructed the Chabutara in the public way and on account of construction of the Chabutara in the southern side of the chowk, there is no land in southern side of the Chowk, out of which 11.6' land was of defendants' father and in the sale deed 11.6' land is shown to be of the plaintiff's father whereas out of this 11.6' land, 9' land was used by the defendants for their use and occupation and the remaining 2.6' land was left by them for the way. The plaintiff is bound by the sale deed. The defendants further denied the contents of the plaint and lastly, in para 7, it was stated that the drain-outlet ( ijukyk ) is in existence since last more than twenty years and is causing no nuisance or loss to the plaintiff. In the sale deed, there is no such Chabutara shown by the plaintiff. The defendants further denied the contents of the plaint and lastly, in para 7, it was stated that the drain-outlet ( ijukyk ) is in existence since last more than twenty years and is causing no nuisance or loss to the plaintiff. In the sale deed, there is no such Chabutara shown by the plaintiff. In the additional pleas, it has been stated by the defendants that the Chowk belong to Ratan Chand and Subhash and the plaintiff has no relation with the same and in case the defendants have constructed a room there, then it is not causing any loss or harassment to the plaintiff. 5. Defendant No.2 Manoj Kumar remained ex parte. However, defendants No. 4 Vasdev and defendant No.5 Shiv Charan filed written statement to the same effect. 6. With the aforesaid averments, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs: 1- jax ihyk ekdZ ' tsM ' lkoZtfud pkSd o jkLrk vke o jax dkyk ekdZ ' vkj ' dks jkLrk vke ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos rFkk ekdZ ih 18 x 1-6 QhV pkSM+h nhokj pcwrjk ekdZ ,Dl 10-6- x 10-6 QhV ,oa ekdZ ' vkj ' jax dkyk esa crjQ iwjc mRrj dksus ij 28 x 3-6 QhV pkSM+h txg ij vfrdze.k dj nhokj fuekZ.k dh x;h o ekdZ ' D;w ' ijukyk voS/k gS o izfroknhx.k dks buds fuekZ.k dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA 2- lkoZtfud pkSd o jkLrk vke ekdZ ' tsM ' jax ihyk esa fd, x, voS/k fuekZ.k nhokj] pcwrjk] ekdZ vkj jkLrk esa ekdZ okbZ ds voS/k fuekZ.k dks rqMok;k tkdj lkQ djk;k tkos o ekdZ ' D;w ' ijukyk dks gVk;k tkosA 3- vly izfroknhx.k dks tfj;s LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ikcan Hkh fd;k tkosA 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following six Issues were framed: 1- vk;k okni= dh en la[;k 1 esa of.kZr ,oa layXu uD'ks esa o jax gjk ls nf'kZr edku e; pcwrjk oknh ds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dk gS\ & oknh 2- vk;k oknh ds edku ds o rjQ if'pe ekdZ tsM pkSd o jkLrk lkoZtfud gS\ & oknh 3- vk;k oknh lkoZtfud pkSd ds jkLrk ekdZ tsM o jax ihyk esa fd;s x;s voS?k fuekZ.k nhokj] pcwrjk o ekdZ vkj esa fd;s x;s ekdZ okbZ voS/k fuekZ.k dks rqMokdj lkQ djkus ,oa ekdZ D;w ijukys dks gVokus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & oknh 4- vk;k oknh] lkoZtfud pkSd o jkLrs esa fuekZ.k u djus] njoktk u fudkyus] QkVd u p<+kus] jkLrs esa vkus tkus esa O;o/kku u djus ,oa oknh dks edku ls tcjnLrh csn[ky us djus ds fy, izfroknhx.k dks LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn djok ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ &oknh 5- vk;k okn oknh lkoZtfud pkSd o jkLrk ds laca/k esa izfrfuf/k okn ds :i esa is'k us fd;s tkus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ & izfroknhx.k 6- vuqrks"k\ 8. In support of the aforesaid Issues, the plaintiff Balveer Singh examined himself as PW-1 and also examined Kishan Singh PW-2 and Ganga Ram (PW-3). In documentary evidence, the plaintiff submitted map Ex.1, Sale deed - agreement Ex.2, map Ex.3, sle deed dated 10.10.84 Ex.4 with map and permission to raise construction Ex.5. 9. From the side of defendants, defendant No.1 Sukhveer Singh examined himself as DW-1 and also examined Ratan Chand as DW-2. However, no documentary evidence was produced by the defendants. 10. After hearing both the parties and consideration of oral evidence, the trial court decided Issues No.1,2,3 and 4 against the plaintiff and Issue No.5 against the defendants and dismissed the civil suit vide its judgment and decree dated 31.7.2009. 11. Against the said judgment and decree dated 31.7.2009, the plaintiff Balveer filed Civil Appeal No.18/2009 before the Addl. Distt. Judge No.1, Deeg, who after hearing both the parties, vide its judgment and decree dated 13.1.2011 reversed the findings on Issues No.1,2 and 3. Consequently, while deciding Issue No.4 it was held by the lower appellate court that the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction. Since no cross-objections were filed, the finding on Issue No.5 against the defendants attained finality. Judge No.1, Deeg, who after hearing both the parties, vide its judgment and decree dated 13.1.2011 reversed the findings on Issues No.1,2 and 3. Consequently, while deciding Issue No.4 it was held by the lower appellate court that the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction. Since no cross-objections were filed, the finding on Issue No.5 against the defendants attained finality. In relief clause, the lower appellate court while accepting the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, passed injunction based on the reversal of the findings on Issues No.2,3 and 4. Since no cross-objections were filed, the finding on Issue No.5 against the defendants attained finality. In relief clause, the lower appellate court while accepting the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, passed injunction based on the reversal of the findings on Issues No.2,3 and 4. The finding on the Issues No.2,3 and 4 as well as the injunction order is as follows: oknh ds fodz; i= bdjkjukek izn'kZ 2 o blds uD'kk izn'kZ 3 esa bls jkLrk vke ds :i esa [kqyk gqvk n'kkZ;k x;k gS] blls Hkh oknh ds dFku o lk{; dh iqf"V gksrh gSA bl izdkj izfroknh lq[kohj Mh0M0 1 dk dguk gS fd mlds pkpk dk pkSd vyx gS o lkeykrh pkSd vyx gS] drbZ lgh ugha gSA Lo;a ;ksX; fopkj.k U;k;ky; us izfroknhx.k }kjk f}rh; IykWV esa 18 QhV yEckbZ ds LFkku ij 10 QhV c<+kdj 28 QhV yEckbZ esa fuekZ.k fd;k tkuk ekuk gS blesa tks 10 QhV tehu pkSd dh 'kkfey dh xbZ gS og Li"Vr% lkeykrh pkSd gksuk gh izekf.kr gksrk gS] U;kjkuwj izfroknhx.k ds pkp jrupan dk gksuk fdlh Hkh :i esa izekf.kr ugha gSA bl izdkj oknh }kjk crk;s dfFkr vfrdze.k izfroknhx.k }kjk fd;k tkuk iwjh rjg ls izekf.kr gksrk gSA blh izdkj mRrjh jkLrk ekdZ ' vkj ' esa tks izfroknhx.k dh tkequh jax ls nf'kZr tk;nkn ds mRrjh jkLrk vke dh vksj ekdZ okbZ ls nf'kZr vfrdze.k o jax lq[kZ dk fd;k tkuk Hkh lk{; o uD'kk izn'kZ 1 dks ns[kus ek= ls fLFkfr ls gh izekf.kr gksrk gSA bl LFkku ij ekdZ vkj ls nf'kZr jkLrk vke 10 QhV ds LFkku ij 6 QhV 6 bap gh jg x;k gSA lk{kh fd'ku flag ih0M0 2 us blls okguksa esa vkus tkus esa :dkoV gksuk Hkh crk;k gSA Lo;a izfroknh lq[kohj Mh0M0 1 us egRoiw.kZ :i ls ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd buds vke jkLrk esa fxjus okys eksjh ds ikuh ls ckfj'k ds le; esa oknh ds fdokM Hkhx tkrs gSaA jrupan Mh0M0 2 us Hkh izfroknh ds edku dk ijukyk mRrj fn'kk esa oknh edku ds ikl fLFkr gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA oLrqr% izfroknhx.k dks bl izdkj ls [kqys vke mij ls ijukyk fxjkdj oknh ds fy, vonw"k.k iSnk djus dk dksbZ fof/kd vf/kdkj miyC/k ugha gSA oknh ds gjs jax dh edkfu;r esa blh mRrjh vke jkLrs ds vksj iksjh dk njoktk Hkh gS vkSj mlds dhokM ckfj'k esa Lohd`r :i ls izfroknhx.k ds ijukys ls Hkhx tkrs gSaA " mDr fook|d la[;k 1] 2 o 3 ds fu"d"kZ o fu.kZ; dks ns[krs gq, oknh izfroknh ds fo:) mDr okafNr LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA bl laca/k esa tSlk fd ge ns[k pqds gSa ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk ;g fu"d"kZ fd oknh vius LokfeRo dh Hkwfe ls vf/kd Hkwfe ij c<+dj crjQ if'pe pcwrjs cuk fy, gSa] drbZ vk/kkjghu o ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd izfroknhx.k dks muds eksrhyky oS'; ls [kjhn ds iathd`r c;ukek izekf.kr izfrfyfi izn'kZ 4 ds vuqlkj vius LokfeRo vkf/kiR; dh Hkwfe ij fuekZ.k djus dk iwjk vf/kdkj gS fdUrq jkLrkvke] lkoZtfud pkSd] dh Hkwfe ij fuekZ.k djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA egRoiw.kZ :i ls izfroknhx.k }kjk dfFkr fuekZ.k dk;Z xzke iapk;r dh Lohd`fr ysdj fd;k x;k gks] ,slk Hkh dksbZ izek.k bu izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS blls Hkh izfroknhx.k ds fo:) gh fof/kd mi/kkj.kk fudyrh gSA bl izdkj ;g rudh Hkh vc vihy esa gekjs }kjk oknh ds i{k esa fuf.kZr dh tkrh gSA " vr% vihy vihykFkhZ@oknh cyohj flag fo:) vly izR;FkhZx.k ,d yxk;r rhu@izfroknhx.k lq[kohj flag oxSjg Lohdkj dh tkrh gS o ;ksX; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( d0[k0 ) Mhx }kjk muds ewy nhokuh okn la[;k 67@2005 esa fnukad 31-7-2009 dks ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA vihykFkhZ@oknh }kjk izLrqr okn la[;k 67@2005 fo:) vly izfroknhx.k 1 yxk;r 3 Lohdkj dj ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd uD'kk utjh izn'kZ 1 esa iznf'kZr jax ihyk ekdZ tsM lkoZtfud pkSd o jkLrk vke ,oa jax dkyk ekdZ vkj jkLrk vke dh txg gS ftl ij rhuksa vly izfroknhx.k dks fdlh Hkh izdkj dk fuekZ.k djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS o bu izfroknhx.k ds }kjk ekdZ ih 18 QhV yEch x 1 QhV 6 bat pkSM+h nhokj] pcwrjk ekdZ ,Dl 10-6 QhV x 10-6 QhV ,oa ekdZ vkj jax dkyk esa mRrjh iwohZ dksus ij 28 x 3-6 QhV txg ij tks fnokj fuekZ.k dh gS og ekdZ D;w ijukyk yxkdj [kqyk ikuh cgk;k tkrk gS og voS/k gS ftl ij izfroknhx.k Lo;a ds [kpsZ ls ekdZ D;w ijukys ij ikbZi ykbZu bl izdkj yxkos fd mlds ikuh fxjus ls oknh dks fdlh Hkh :i ls dksbZ vonw"k.k us gks o vU; mDr vfrdze.k ,oa voS/k fuekZ.k dks izfroknhx.k Lo;a ds [kpsZa ls vnaj 2 ekg rqMokdj lkQ djds iwoZ fLFkfr dk;e djsA izfroknhx.k dks tfj, LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ikcan fd;k tkrk gS fd os iqu% mDr lkoZtfud pkSd o jkLrk vke esa dksbZ fuekZ.k ugha djs o blesa U;kjkuwj dksbZ njoktk fudkydj QkVd p<+kdj bls can u djs o oknh dks bl lkoZtfud pkSd o jkLrk vke esa gksdj vkus tkus esa dksbZ O;o/kku iSnk u djsa vkSj oknh dks mlds gjs jax ls nf'kZr edkfu;r ls csn[ky u djs vkSj oknh dks vius gjs jax dh bl edkfu;r esa fuekZ.k djus ls u jksdsaA [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk viuk ogu djsaxsA fMdzh ipkZ cuk;k tkosA bl fu.kZ; dh izfr lfgr ;ksX; vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; dh ryfcnk i=koyh mUgsa okil Hksth tkosA " 12. Submission of counsel for the defendant-appellants is that the trial court had rightly dismissed the civil suit and the finding of reversal given by the lower appellate court is perverse being based on misreading of evidence. 13. Submission of counsel for the plaintiff-respondent is that the lower appellate court has rightly appreciated evidence and then reversed the findings on Issues No.1,2 and 3 and the plaintiff is entitled for demolition of the encroachment. Consequently, the finding on Issue No.4 is also based on evidence and the plaintiff-respondent has rightly been held to be entitled for the permanent injunction. 14. I have gone through record of the second appeal as also record of both the courts below as well as the aforesaid relevant findings. 15. On careful consideration of the evidence and reversal of the findings on Issues No.1,2,3 and 4 by the appellate court, in my view, the appellate court has rightly reversed the findings on Issues No.1,2 and 3 and further rightly held the plaintiff entitled for permanent injunction. The said findings are based on evidence, therefore, the same can not be termed as perverse. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******