Raghbir Singh v. Gulab Singh

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-1566-2023 (O&M) -2 3.

Suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising/placing any construction over the northern wall marked by letters AB in the site plan attached to the plaint as the plaintiff claimed the same to be exclusively owned by him. 4.

Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove his exclusive ownership over the wall. Rather the site plan Exhibit P-1, shows that the wall in question is a common wall between the houses of the appellant and the respondent. The suit stands dismissed.

5.

Admittedly, the suit was accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC as well. The temporary injunction was declined. Thus, apart from there being no evidence to prove that wall marked by letters AB was exclusively owned by appellant, the construction which was in process already stands completed. 6.

In view thereof, this Court finds no reason to interefere in the well reasoned findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. 7.

Resultantly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed.

8.

Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed off. May 14, 2026 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.05.15 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document