RSA-1903-1996 IN THE 203 Jasmat (since dec Amir Singh (sin CORAM : HON Present: Ms. Ms. for L Mr. for r


AMARINDER S 1. The appellant–plainti the learned 1st defendants was by the learned t the appellant-plai 2. For manner in which 3. In b permanent prohib triangular plot si ABC in the site 1996 -1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH RSA No. Reserved Pronounc Uploaded ce deceased) through LRs Versus nce deceased) through LRs and o HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Ms. Neha Rani, Advocate for Ms. Sweta Beniwal, Advocate for LRs of the appellant. Mr. Tapan Kumar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.



 DER SINGH GREWAL, J. The present regular second appe plaintiff against the judgment and dec Appellate Court, whereby the a was accepted and the judgment and trial Court decreeing the suit for p plaintiff was set aside. For the sake of convenience, the p which they were before the learned Tr In brief, the facts of the case are tha prohibitory injunction asserting his a plot situated in village Indri, Tehsil N e site plan and shown in red colou NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH No.1903 of 1996 (O&M) erved on:16.01.2026 nounced on: 22.01.2026 oaded on:23.01.2026 ... Appellant others ... Respondents MARINDER SINGH GREWAL ppeal has been preferred by th nd decree dated 20.07.1996 passed by the appeal filed by the respondents t and decree dated 01.03.1996 passed it for permanent injunction in favour o the parties are being described in th ned Trial Court. are that the plaintiff instituted a suit fo his actual physical possession over hsil Nuh, District Gurgaon, marked a colour. It was pleaded that the sui s by the ssed by ndents- passed vour of in the suit for over a rked as he suit PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1903-1996 property measur northern-eastern nature and that h period and chhap cattle were used no right, title or i plaintiff on 11.0 Hence, the presen 4. Upo controverting the neither the owne ancestral propert is a resident of v only recently set placed on record of the plaintiff o pleaded that the suit has been ins plaintiff has sup false, frivolous, a 5. On framed the follow (i) prop (ii) inju 1996 -2- easured about 110 feet on the wes astern side. The plaintiff claimed that t that he had been in continuous posse hhappar, khors, fodder cutting mach used to be tethered. It was further av tle or interest in the suit property, thre 11.01.1993, giving rise to the cau present suit. Upon notice, the defendants ing the averments of the plaint. It wa owner nor in possession of the suit pr roperty of the defendants. It was spec nt of village Khanpur, Tehsil Nuh, D tly settled in village Indri. It was as record the correct site plan of the prop intiff over the suit property was cate at the plaintiff is not an original resid en instituted merely to harass the de as suppressed material facts, lacks lous, and not maintainable in law. On the basis of the pleadings of th following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff is owne property? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled injunction? e western side and 165 feet on th d that the suit property was of ancestra s possession thereof for a considerabl machine were existing on the land and ther averred that the defendants, having y, threatened to forcibly dispossess th e cause of action for filing the suit ants filed their written statemen . It was pleased that the plaintiff wa suit property and that the same was th as specifically pleaded that the plaintif uh, District Gurgaon, and that he ha was asserted that the plaintiff has no e property in question. The possession s categorically denied. It was furthe l resident of village Indri and that th the defendants. It was alleged that th cks locus standi, and that the suit i of the parties, the learned trial Cour owner in possession of the suit titled to the relief of permanent on the cestral derable nd and having ess the e suit. tement iff was was the laintiff he has has not session further that the that the suit is l Court PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1903-1996 (iii) (iv) 6. In o documentary evi Nanwa Lambard standing possessi upon the site pla defendant No.1 a defendants, howe the village was ex 7. Upo learned trial Cou the suit property possession. Relia and PW-3, duly reflected the exi cattle at the spo independent evi possession. On t vide judgment a interfering in the 8. Agg Court, the defend which vide judgm recorded by the 1996 -3- (iii) Whether the plaintiff has (iv) Relief.” In order to prove their case, both ry evidence. The plaintiff appeared mbardar and PW-3, Attar Singh, w ossession of the plaintiff over the suit p ite plan and the report of the Local Co No.1 appeared as DW-1 and asserted , however, except for his own stateme was examined in support of the defenc Upon appreciation of the pleading al Court held that though both parties roperty, the plaintiff succeeded in e . Reliance was placed on the consist , duly corroborated by the report of he existence of chhappar, fodder cu he spot. The learned trial Court als nt evidence on behalf of the defe . On these premises, the suit for per ent and decree dated 01.03.1996, in the possession of the plaintiff excep Aggrieved by the said judgment defendants preferred an appeal before judgment dated 20.07.1996 allowed y the learned trial Court on issues No.1 has no cause of action? both the parties led oral as well a eared as PW-1 and examined PW- gh, who supported the plea of long e suit property. The plaintiff also relied cal Commissioner. On the other hand serted ownership and possession of the tatement, no independent witness from defence version. eadings and evidence on record, the parties failed to prove ownership ove d in establishing his actual physica onsistent testimonies of PW-1, PW rt of the Local Commissioner, which der cutting machine and tethering o also noticed the absence of any defendants to rebut the plaintiff’ permanent injunction was decreed , restraining the defendants from except in due course of law. ment and decree of the learned tria before the learned 1st Appellate Court owed the appeal, reversed the finding s No.1 and 2, and dismissed the suit o well as -2, f long o relied r hand, of the ss from rd, the ip over hysical , PW-2 which ring of of any intiff’s ecreed, s from d trial Court, indings suit of PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1903-1996 the plaintiff by h or possession ove 9. Lear judgment of the record. It is subm testimony of PW village, and PW the plaintiff was said witnesses w plaintiff, and th Commissioner. I bald statement, f of their plea, and their stand. Acc overlooked by th learned trial Cou thus, acted beyon that the judgmen aside and the p judgment and dec 10. Per the judgment an Court and conten the learned trial to establish his p 1996 -4- ff by holding that the plaintiff had fai on over the suit property. Hence, the p Learned counsel for the appellan of the learned 1st Appellate Court is c is submitted that the learned trial Cou of PW-1 (the plaintiff himself), PW d PW-3 Attar Singh, aged about 50 y ff was in settled possession of the su sses were consistent and categorical nd their testimony stood corroborat ner. It is further contended that the d ent, failed to produce any independe ea, and not a single person from the . According to the appellant, this m by the learned 1st Appellate Court w al Court without demonstrating any pe beyond the settled parameters of app dgment and decree passed by the lea the present appeal of the appellan nd decree passed by the learned trial C Per contra, learned counsel for the re ent and decree dated 20.07.1996 pass contended that the judgment and dec trial Court was rightly set aside. It w his possession over the suit property ad failed to establish either ownership , the present regular second appeal. ppellant-plaintiff contended that the is contrary to law and evidence on al Court, after due appreciation of the lf), PW-2 Nanwa, Lambardar of the t 50 years, had rightly concluded tha the suit property. It is argued that the orical regarding the possession of the oborated by the report of the Loca t the defendants, except for their own pendent or cogent evidence in suppor the village came forward to suppor this material aspect was completely while reversing the findings of the any perversity or illegality therein and of appellate jurisdiction. It was prayed learned 1st Appellate Court be se pellant be allowed by restoring the trial Court. r the respondents-defendants supported passed by the learned 1st Appellate nd decree dated 01.03.1996 passed by e. It was argued that the plaintiff failed operty by cogent and reliable evidence nership at the nce on of the of the ed that hat the of the Local ir own support support pletely s of the ein and prayed be set ng the ported pellate sed by f failed idence PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1903-1996 and that the find was further cont reference and th evidence on reco Court. It was la consideration in t 11. examined the ju evidence on reco Appellate Court appreciation of b Court had placed Local Commissi attested by the learned 1st Appel proper authentic possession. Simil Commissioner ex was required onl proceeded to rec were keeping c possession. It is a determine posse evidence. The whereas the learn 1996 -5- e findings recorded by the learned tr r contended that the Local Commissi and that the learned 1st Appellate Co n record while reversing the erroneo was lastly submitted that no substan ion in the present appeal and the same I have heard learned counse the judgments passed by the learned n record. Upon such consideration, thi Court has reversed the findings of the n of both facts and law. At the outset, placed undue reliance on the site pl missioner. The site plan relied upo the scribe nor supported by any o Appellate Court rightly noticed that su thentication, could not form the ba Similarly, the learned 1st Appellate C ner exceeded the scope of his jurisdi ed only to report the physical features to record observations suggesting tha ing cattle on the plot, thereby vi . It is a settled principle that a Local C possession or title, and his repor The learned trial Court failed to a learned 1st Appellate Court rightly co rned trial Court were unsustainable. I mmissioner exceeded the scope of hi late Court has rightly appreciated the rroneous findings of the learned tria ubstantial question of law arises fo same deserves dismissal. counsel for the parties and carefully learned Courts below along with the ion, this Court finds that the learned 1 of the learned trial Court on a correc utset, it is evident that the learned tria site plan Ex.P-1 and the report of the ed upon by the plaintiff was neithe any official or revenue record. The that such a site plan, in the absence o he basis for recording a finding o llate Court correctly held that the Loca jurisdiction. The Local Commissione atures existing at the spot; however, he ng that the plaintiff’s family member by virtually returning a finding on ocal Commissioner is not competent to report cannot substitute substantive d to appreciate this legal limitation htly corrected the said error. able. It of his ted the ed trial ses for refully ith the rned 1st correct rial of the neither d. The ence of ing of e Local ssioner ver, he embers ing on etent to tantive itation, PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1903-1996 12. Th the plaintiff’s c documentary ev Paimash, no effo PW-2 Nanwa, L existed, yet the p where the best e The learned trial Appellate Court r 13. On table Ex.D-3 for was Narain Singh to village Khanp as rightly observ plaintiff was no weakening his cl 14. Com subjected the tes careful scrutiny had contested P defeated by him, he was not on s account of the ar defendants. Thes were inimical w 1996 -6- The learned 1st Appellate Court furt iff’s case arising from the non-pro ry evidence. Despite the admitted no effort was made by the plaintiff to nwa, Lambardar, categorically admi t the plaintiff withheld it without exp best evidence is withheld, an adverse d trial Court completely overlooked th Court rightly treated it as fatal to the pl On the other hand, the defendants 3 for the year 1961-62, which estab Singh and his grandfather was Chajju hanpur. The plaintiff did not dispute observed by the learned 1st Appellate as not the original resident of vi his claim of long-standing possession Coming to the oral evidence, th the testimony of PW-2 Nanwa, Lamb utiny, which the learned trial Court fai sted Panchayat elections against de y him, thereby establishing prior politi t on speaking terms with the defend the arrest of his son in a criminal case . These admissions unmistakably dem ical witnesses, whose testimony requ further noticed a serious infirmity in production of the best available mitted existence of Shajra Khasra ntiff to summon or produce the same admitted that such revenue record ut explanation. The settled law is tha dverse inference is liable to be drawn ked this aspect; whereas the learned 1 the plea of possession. ndants placed on record the pedigree established that the plaintiff’s fathe Chajju, and that the pedigree pertained ispute these particulars. This evidence ellate Court, clearly indicated that the of village Indri, thereby materially ession over the suit property. ce, the learned 1st Appellate Cour Lambardar, and PW-3 Attar Singh to urt failed to do. PW-2 admitted that he nst defendant Amir Singh and wa r political hostility. PW-3 admitted tha defendants for the last two years on al case registered at the instance of the ly demonstrated that PW-2 and PW y required independent corroboration mity in ailable hasra same. record is that drawn. rned 1st edigree father rtained idence, hat the terially Court ingh to that he d was ted that ars on of the PW-3 ration. PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1903-1996 The learned tria learned 1st Appel 15. In th that the finding o interested oral Commissioner’s reliable documen of the learned t and correct appli 16. It is own case and tha the plaintiff’s ev duty-bound to re been mis-apprec give rise to a sub 17. How Court in Pankaj Chandrika and o and others (201 Gurcharan Sing questions of law and Haryana Hig Section 41 of the 1996 -7- ed trial Court overlooked these ma Appellate Court correctly discounted t In this backdrop, the learned 1st Ap ding of possession recorded by the lea oral testimony, an unauthenticat ner’s report beyond its permissible s cumentary or revenue record. The rev trial Court was, thus, based on pr t application of settled principles of law It is well settled that the plaintiff mu and that the weakness of the defence d ff’s evidence. It is equally settled tha d to reverse findings of the learned tri ppreciated, and such reversal, when a substantial question of law. However, in view of the judgments nkajakshi (Dead) through Legal R and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Rand (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs and oth f law are not required to be framed in na High Court whose jurisdiction is of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. se material admissions, whereas the unted their evidentiary value. Appellate Court rightly concluded learned trial Court was founded on enticated site plan, and a Loca sible scope, without support from any he reversal of the judgment and decree on proper re-appreciation of evidence s of law. tiff must succeed on the strength of hi fence does not cure the deficiencies in led that learned 1st Appellate Court i ned trial Court where the evidence ha when supported by reasons, does no ments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme gal Representatives and others Vs Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh han Singh (dead) through LRs Vs others (2023) SCC Online SC 875 ed in second appeal before the Punjab ion is circumscribed by provisions o as the cluded ded on Local m any decree idence of his cies in ourt is ce has oes not upreme s Vs. ingh s Vs. 875, Punjab ions of PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1903-1996 18. As a infirmity in the j Consequently, th 19. Pend January 22, 202 Pankaj* 1996 -8- As an upshot of above, this Court n the judgment and decree passed by tly, the instant regular second appeal i Pending application(s), if any, shall (AMAR 2, 2026 Whether speaking/reaso Whether reportable Court finds no perversity, illegality o ed by the learned 1st Appellate Court ppeal is dismissed. , shall also stand disposed of. MARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE g/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No ality or Court. PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.23 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh