IN T Kishan Ch Satish Kum CORAM Present : ROHIT KA CM-1967 27 of the C Ashok Kum 23.05.1996 A-1. and docum IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA an Chand Vij Versus h Kumar Marwaha etc. Judgm Whether only the operativ pronounced or whether the Full Judgment AM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R * * * * Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate; Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate Mr. Akash Singla, Advocate fo Mr. Rajesh Garg, Sr. Advocate Ms. Neha Matharoo, Advocate Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advocate * * * * IT KAPOOR, J. 1967-C-2025 The instant application has be f the Code of Civil Procedure, for p k Kumar, Clerk recorded on 13.08.1 .1996, along with the translated vers For the reasons stated in the a ocuments Annexures A-1 and A-1/A a Registry is directed to tag the s PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH RSA No.278 of 2005 (O&M) …. Appellant …. Respondents Reserved on: 14.11.2025 Pronounced on: 12.02.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 27.02.2026 ative part of the judgment is the full judgment is pronounced: CE ROHIT KAPOOR cate; ocate & cate for the appellant. vocate with vocate & vocate for the respondents. has been filed under order 41 Rule for placing on record statement of 13.08.1998 in Civil Suit No.174 of d version, as Annexure A-1/A and the application the same is allowed 1/A are taken on record. g the same at appropriate place. M) llant ents 2025 2026 2026 is ed: Rule nt of 4 of and wed DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 RSA No.27 1. appellant- representat by the learn respondents dated 06.03 Division), K 2. before the and the resp Factual Ba 3. owners of t land parcel 4278 (0k. the headno late Mahar garage, by (Gregorian been transf 4 Fagun, Sa 4. partnership Dass, upon .278 of 2005 (O&M) No.278 of 2005 The present regular second a -defendant (now deceased and entatives), against judgment and de e learned District Judge, Kapurthala, w ndents-plaintiffs has been allowed a 06.03.2003 passed by the learned A sion), Kapurthala, has been set aside. The parties shall hereinafter b re the trial court, i.e. the appellant sh he respondents shall be referred as ‘pla Background Briefly stated, the claim of rs of the suit land measuring about 15 parcel measuring 3 kanal 4 marlas .-9m.), 4282/1 (2k.-13m.), and 42 eadnote of the plaint. This land parce Maharaja of Kapurthala for the purp by one Sh. Jagan Nath Aggarwal rian Calendar 1926). Subsequently transferred in his favour by issuance o un, Samvat 1989, (12th March 1932). Sh. Jagan Nath Aggarwal ership with Mathura Das and Kansh , upon the said land as well as other p -2- cond appeal has been filed by the and represented through legal nd decree dated 22.11.2004 passed hala, whereby the appeal filed by the wed and the judgment and decree rned Additional Civil Judge (Senior side. after be referred to as per their status lant shall be referred as ‘defendant’ as ‘plaintiffs’. m of the plaintiffs is that they are out 15 marlas, which was part of the arlas comprised in khasra numbers 4285/1 (0k.-2m.)as described in parcel was taken on lease from the e purpose of constructing a motor arwal during the year Samvat 1983 uently, the said land is stated to have ance of a sanad by the Maharaja on 1932). garwal started joint business in Kanshi Ram, sons of Lala Bishan ther property situated in Kapurthala, - the gal ssed y the ecree enior tatus dant’ are f the s ed in the otor 1983 have ja on s in ishan hala, DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 Hoshiarpur including th deed on 30 fell to the owners in p Kanshi Ram along with was partitio question fe further clai Chaudhary 5. owners of t partition de be tenant in stated to h Chaudhary property. over the sui 6. East Punjab from the pr of late Sh relationship petition by .278 of 2005 (O&M) iarpur and Raiya. The business was ding the immovable properties, by exe on 30 Fagun, 1993 i.e. 12.03.1937. to the share of Lala Mathra Dass an in possession of the same. The fa hi Ram continued to do business in pa with their brother Muni Lal and on 2 partitioned by executing a registered p fell to the share of Hussan Lal, er claimed that some portion of the p dhary Hans Raj. After the death of Sh. Hussan rs of the property in question, in equal tion deed dated 25.05.1955, wherein C nant in some portion of the property. A d to have been executed in favour o dhary Hans Raj who is stated to ha erty. The possession of the defendant the suit property was stated to be perm Petition No.20 of 1985 was Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for the premises in dispute. The defenda ate Sh. Hans Raj filed a reply/wr ionship of landlord and tenant on 13 by some of the plaintiffs was dis -3- s was divided amongst the partners, by executing a registered dissolution 937. The land/property in question ass and Kanshi Ram, who became he family of Lala Mathra Dass and in partnership amongst themselves, d on 25.05.1955 the family property tered partition deed. The property in n Lal, father of the plaintiffs. It is f the property was on rent with one ussan Lal, the plaintiffs claim to be qual share. There is a recital in the rein Chaudhary Hans Raj is stated to erty. A rent note dated 04.06.1955 is our of the father of defendant, i.e. to have become tenant in the suit ndant and his predecessor-in-interest permissive. s filed under Section 13 of the 49 for the ejectment of the defendant efendant along with other legal heirs ply/written statement denying the n 13.05.1986. The aforementioned as dismissed on 15.06.1988 by the - , ution stion came and , perty in It is one to be n the ed to 55 is i.e. suit erest e dant heirs the oned y the DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 Rent Contr tenant and also dismis injunction a which was 7. became ille from 13.05 and tenant. from raisi property wa 8. the suit pro the same, possession. 9. statement maintainab permanent dismissal o merits, the that the s No.5700/42 Chaudhary was issued .278 of 2005 (O&M) Controller, Kapurthala, by holding th t and landlord between the parties. Th missed on 25.04.1990. The plaint ction against the defendant during the h was withdrawn. The plaintiffs claimed that th illegal and unauthorized, and his s 13.05.1986, i.e. the date when he deni tenant. Suit for permanent injunction raising construction/re-construction erty was also filed, which was dismisse As per the plaintiffs, they requ uit property on numerous occasions a same, they were constrained to fi ession. On receipt of notice, the ment and took certain prelimi tainability of the suit on the ground of anent injunction was withdrawn), limi issal of ejectment petition), non-join ts, the averments made in the plaint w the suit property is in fact Abad 700/4282min. The defendant claime dhary (First Chaudhary) of Yakka K issued in his favour and therefore, he -4- ing that there was no relationship of ies. The appeal against the order was plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent ng the pendency of the rent petition, that the possession of the defendant d his status was that of a trespasser e denied the relationship of landlord nction for restraining the defendant ruction upon any portion of the ismissed as withdrawn. requested the defendant to vacate ions and on his refusal to accede to to file the suit in question, for , the defendant filed his written reliminary objections regarding und of res judicata (since the suit for limitation, estoppel (on account of joinder of necessary parties. On laint were denied and it was claimed Abadi Deh and falls in Khasra claimed that his father was Agazi akka Khana, Kapurthala and sanad re, he was the owner in possession. - ip of was nent ition, dant asser dlord dant the acate de to for ritten rding it for nt of . On imed hasra gazi ad sion. DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 The stand o the site abo the name o that 10 yea started run being run o father of th and uninter interest of extinguishe way of adv and has ma 10. by the defe facts stated Issues 11. framed: .278 of 2005 (O&M) stand of the defendant was that his fat ite about 67 years ago and the electric ame of his father who died in the ye 10 years after the partition of the coun running a dairy on the site in que run on the site by the defendant, till r of the defendant and he himself, hav uninterrupted possession of the site i est of the plaintiffs or their p guished and the defendant became o of adverse possession, which is hosti as matured into full ownership of the d The plaintiffs filed replication e defendant, denying the averments m stated in the plaint. From the pleadings of the par 1) Whether the plaintiffs ar possession of the suit prope 2) Whether the present suit is the earlier suit on 2.4.1987 3) Whether the plaintiffs ar conduct from filing this sui 4) Whether the suit is bad parties? OPD -5- his father had raised construction on lectric and water connections were in the year 1975. It was further stated e country, the father of the defendant in question and the said dairy was nt, till date. It was claimed that the have been in peaceful, continuous site in question. The right, title and eir predecessors-in-interest, stood ame owner of the suit property, by s hostile and adverse to the plaintiff of the defendant. ication to the written statement filed ents made therein and reiterated the he parties, the following issues were s are entitled to the decree for roperty? OPP. it is barred because of dismissal of 1987? OPD s are stopped by their act and s suit? OPD ad for non-joinder of necessary - n on re in tated dant was t the uous and tood , by intiff filed d the were for l of nd ary DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 12. documentar issue No.1 issues No.2 plaintiffs, judgment a 13. plaintiffs Appellate C of the cour was decree Arguments 14. argued that setting asid based upon on record. litigation and withou which was for the suit .278 of 2005 (O&M) 5) Whether the suit is not prop court fee and jurisdiction? 6) Relief. After perusal of the plead mentary evidence adduced by the p No.1 against the plaintiffs and in fa s No.2 to 5 were decided against the d , and the trial court dismissed ment and decree dated 06.03.2003. The decision of the learned t tiffs by filing an appeal, which was llate Court, vide judgment and decre e court of first instance was set aside decreed. ments of the defendant Learned counsel appearing on ed that the learned First Appellate Co g aside the well-reasoned findings o d upon a proper appreciation of the ple cord. It is submitted that the plaintiffs tion apart from the suit in question and without being able to prove ownersh h was not maintainable. It is argued he suit was that of a suit for possessi -6- properly valued for the purpose of on? OPD pleadings as well as oral and the parties, the trial court decided d in favour of the defendant, while t the defendants and in favour of the issed the suit with costs, vide its rned trial court was assailed by the h was allowed by the learned First decree 22.11.2004 and the decision t aside and the suit of the plaintiffs ring on behalf of the defendant has ate Court has committed an error in ings of the trial court, which were the pleadings and evidence available intiffs had failed in severalrounds of ion and despite failing in every court nership, filed the suit in question, rgued that though the nomenclature ossession, but careful perusal of the - of and ided hile f the its the First ision ntiffs t has or in were lable ds of court tion, ature f the DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 pleadings w Article 64 been filed w could have basis of p dispossessi therefore, s proved and State of Pu register of t 15. any eviden Exhibit P- or through sole testim aware of th prove the sa allegedly tr translation the Himach Vs. Amro D and Volum 16. proved, a consideratio .278 of 2005 (O&M) ings would show that the same is for le 64 of the Limitation Act, it is urge filed within 12 years from the date of have filed a suit under Section 6 of of previous possession within 06 ssession, and the present suit does not fore, same is on the basis of title on ed and the same could not have been of Punjab as party, who is recorded of the municipal committee. It is further contended that t evidence to prove their title on the -1, as the said document has not rough any official witness or through testimony of the plaintiff, no person e of the factum of the sanad, has ste the said sanad, which is in Urdu lang edly translated the same, has not bee lation is true and correct. Reliance is imachal Pradesh High Court in the ca ro Devi and others, RSA No.4323 o olume-1, Chapter-1 Part-N of the Hig It is further submitted that on ed, all subsequent documents could ideration and this aspect of the matter h -7- is for declaration. Adverting to the s urged that the said suit could have ate of dispossession or the plaintiffs 6 of the Specific Relief Act on the in 06 months from the date of es not fall in either of the categories, title only which was required to be e been done without impleading the corded as owner in the assessment that the plaintiffs have not tendered n the strength of the alleged sanad s not come from any official record hrough any executants. Except the erson or official witness or any one has stepped into the witness box to u language and even the person who ot been examined to certify that the ance is placed upon the judgment of the case of Pushpa Devi and others 323 of 2013 decided on 02.12.2016 he High Court Rules and Orders. that once Exhibit P-1 itself was not could not have been taken into atter has not been considered by the - o the have ntiffs n the e of ries, o be g the ment ered ad cord t the one x to who t the nt of ers 16 s not into y the DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 learned Fir electricity show the Learned co the impugn wrongly re admission statement No.4282/1 No.4282, 17. rent procee father sinc disbelieved could not h that the def from 1955 hostile. It owner in p D4/1, D4/2 ignored. 18. outset refer 1918 (in s down by th .278 of 2005 (O&M) ed First Appellate Court. It is argue ricity bills and water bills were exhi the possession of the defendant o ned counsel has drawn the attention o pugned judgment to submit that the l gly recorded the finding that the def ssion regarding the identity of the ment. It is urged that there is a hug 282/1 and 4282 min. as 4282 min. is which is left out after the division On the point of adverse posse eedings, the plaintiffs admitted the since 1955 and the relationship lieved by the Rent Controller, then th not have been stated to be permissi he defendant was owner in possession 1955 onwards, and such possessio le. It is contended that the defend r in possession by way of adverse p , D4/2 conferring title upon the de Per contra, learned counsel fo t referred to the provisions of Section in short, ‘Act of 1918’) to contend by the Constitutional Bench of the -8- argued that records reveal that the e exhibited in the file which would dant over the property in dispute. tion of the court to paragraph 14 of t the learned first appellate court has he defendant has made any kind of f the suit property in its written a huge difference between Khasra is the remaining part of Khasra ivision of 4282/1. possession, it is argued that once in ted the possession of the defendant’s nship of landlord and tenant was then the possession of the defendant rmissive and rather it stood proved ession of the land in question at least session was open, continuous and defendant would therefore, become verse possession, even if the sanad the defendant’s father, were to be nsel for the plaintiffs has at the very ection 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, ontend that in view of the law laid f the Supreme Court in the case of - t the ould pute. 4 of t has d of ritten hasra hasra ce in ’s was dant oved least and ome ad o be very , laid se of DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 Pankajaksh others, (20 (Amendme which cont submitted limited gro lower appe interfered w that law is present cas with the H judgment o Kaur v. Pri 19. of a Co-or Nahar Sin of law enu Court regar Section 41 Analysis an 20. rival partie Second Ap Constitutio (supra)that .278 of 2005 (O&M) jakshi (dead) Through LRs and , (2016) 6 SCC 157, Section 97 endment Act), 1976, has no application h continues as a law in force, being itted that the regular second appeal ed grounds as specified under Sectio r appellate Court even if the sam fered with, merely because another vie law is settled that wherever there is a j nt case, the view taken by the lower the High Court. Reliance has been p ment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court o . Prithvi Pal Singh, (2019) 17 SCC Learned senior counsel also pl ordinate Bench of this court, in Singh and others, 2023: PHHC: 1 w enunciated in various pronouncem t regarding scope of interference in a on 41 of the Act of 1918, were conside ysis and Findings At the outset, in context with t parties, the law regarding the scope nd Appeal, is being briefly outlined titution bench of the Supreme Co that regular second appeal would be -9- and others Vs. Chandrika and n 97 of Code of Civil Procedure lication to Section 41 of Act of 1918, being a special and local law. It is appeal can only be decided on the Section 41ibid and findings of the e same are erroneous, cannot be her view is possible. It is submitted e is a judgment of reversal, as in the lower appellate Court should weigh been placed in this regard upon the ourt of India in the case of Randhir CC 71. also places reliance upon a judgment in the case of Tarsem Lal Vs. C: 138639, wherein the principles uncements of the Hon’ble Supreme e in a Regular Second Appeal under onsidered. with the arguments advanced by the scope of interference in a Regular utlined. It has been held by the e Court in case of Pankajakshi uld be governed by Section 41 of the - nd dure 918, It is the f the t be itted n the eigh n the hir ment Vs. iples reme nder y the gular the shi f the DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 1918 Act, provisions Act are pa grounds of grounds as or to some having faile or usage ha the procedu other law f error or def 21. Pankajaka of Randhir .278 of 2005 (O&M) Act, the same being a special/local isions of Section 100 CPC. The provis pari-materia to the unamended Se nds of interference in a second app as mentioned therein, i.e. (a) the d some custom or usage having the f g failed to determine some material is age having the force of law; and (c) a rocedure provided by the Code of Civ law for the time being in force which or defect in the decision of the case up The effect of the Consti jakashi (supra) was considered by t dhir Kaur (supra), wherein it was in “10. The effect of the C in Pankajakshi is that in second within the Punjab and Haryana the Code of Civil Procedur Amendment. The provisions of S of Section 100 CPC are in pari m 11. Some of the judgments of thi the old Section 100 are require in Deity Pattabhiramaswamy v. the scope of Section 100 CPC, 13) “13. The finding on the ti District Judge not on the on a consideration of r evidence adduced by th -10- l/local law and not by the amended provisions of Section 41 of the 1918 ded Section 100 CPC, and therefore d appeal would be limited to the ) the decision being contrary to law the force of law; (b) the decision erial issue of law or to some custom d (c) a substantial error or defect in of Civil Procedure, 1908, or by any which may possibly have produced case upon the merits. Constitution Bench judgment in d by the Supreme Court in the case inter alia observed as under:- Constitution Bench judgment ond appeal, the scope of interference ana High Court would be the same as edure existed prior to the 1976 s of Section 41 of the Punjab Act and i materia. f this Court dealing with the scope of uired to be discussed. In a judgment v. S. Hanymayya, while examining C, held as under : (AIR p. 59, para he title was arrived at by the learned the basis of any document of title but of relevant documentary and oral y the parties. The learned Judge, - nded 1918 efore the law ision stom ct in any uced t in case ent nce as 76 nd of ent ing ara ed but ral ge, DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 .278 of 2005 (O&M) therefore, in our opinion, in setting aside the said f 100 are clear and unamb Judicial Committee in Singh Choudhri stated thu ‘There is no jurisdiction the ground of an erroneo or inexcusable the error m The principle laid down in this innumerable cases by the Privy High Courts in this country. in Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd elucidated the principle by point ‘[If] the question to be d involve an issue of law m were not instruments of otherwise the direct found historical documents, hav Nor does the fact that the findi based upon some documentary finding of fact (see Wali Moham 12. Later, in a judgment, in Ksh three Judges, of this Court he jurisdiction to entertain second it was erroneous. The Court hel 11) “11. On a perusal of the we are satisfied that the jurisdiction under Sec concurrent findings of fac then appellate court both of adverse possession. In Rai this Court held t jurisdiction to entertain se even if it was erroneous. observed as follows : (AIR -11- ion, clearly exceeded his jurisdiction said finding. The provisions of Section ambiguous. As early as in 1891, the in Durga Choudhrain v. Jawahir d thus : (SCC OnLine PC) tion to entertain a second appeal on oneous finding of fact, however gross ror may seem to be.’ this decision has been followed in rivy Council as well as by different try. Again the Judicial Committee . Ltd. v. Uma Charan Mandal further ointing out : (SCC OnLine PC) be decided is one of fact, it does not aw merely because documents which s of title or contracts or statutes or foundations of rights but were merely , have to be construed.’ finding of the first appellate court is tary evidence make it any the less a hammad v. Mohd. Bakhsh). xxxx” Kshitish Chandra Bose v. Commr.— rt held that the High Court has no ond appeal on findings of fact even if t held as follows : (SCC p. 108, para the first judgment of the High Court the High Court clearly exceeded its Section 100 in reversing pure f fact given by the trial court and the both on the question of title and that n. In Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur ld that the High Court had no ain second appeal on findings of fact eous. In this connection, this Court (AIR pp. 1205-06, paras 5 & 7) - ion ion the hir on oss in ent tee her not ich s or ely t is s a — no n if ara urt its ure the hat dur no act urt DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 .278 of 2005 (O&M) ‘5. It is settled la jurisdiction to ent ground of erroneou ** 7. … As the two from a correct per finding of fact, the to interfere with th To the same effect is anothe Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalin observed as follows : (AIR p. 306 ‘12. … But the High C conclusions of fact record however erroneous the sa to the High Court, beca observed, however gross seem to be, there is no j correct that error.’” ** 14. The Division Bench of the P in a judgment in Sadhu v. Kishn set aside the judgment of the le court appeal in terms of the pro to 1976, and held as under: “12. The scope of second 100 of the Civil Procedu Punjab Courts Act has be number of times by this C that is, the Supreme Cou for the appellant has ac regard to Deity Pattabhir 1959 SC 57, Madam Bojjappa, AIR 196 Khanna v. Hafiz Abdul and Afsar Sheikh v. Solem These pronouncements, -12- d law that the High Court has no entertain a second appeal on the neous finding of fact. … *** two courts approached the evidence t perspective and gave a concurrent , the High Court had no jurisdiction h the said finding.’ other decision of this Court in V. alingam Chettiar where the Court . 306, para 12) gh Court cannot interfere with the orded by the lower appellate court, e said conclusions may appear to be because, as the Privy Council has ross or inexcusable the error may no jurisdiction under Section 100 to *** he Punjab and Haryana High Court ishni, 1979 SCC OnLine P&H 141 e learned Single Bench in an intra- provisions of law as it existed prior cond appeal as envisaged by Section cedure Code and Section 41 of the s been a matter of judicial scrutiny a is Court as well as by the final court, Court of India. The learned counsel s actually made a reference in this bhiramaswamy v. S. Hanymayya AIR adamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru 1963 SC 1633, Bithal Dass dul Hai , 1969 SC Notes 481] Soleman Bibi , (1976) 2 SCC 142. in a nutshell, lay down that there - no the nce ent ion V. urt the rt, be has ay to urt 41 - ior ion the y a urt, sel his IR uru ass 81] 42. ere DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 22. Gurnam Si .278 of 2005 (O&M) is no jurisdiction to ent ground of a erroneous fi inexcusable the error ma that the finding of the fir documentary evidence m fact. A Judge of the H jurisdiction to interfere in of fact given by the first appreciation of the rele have further observed tha an appeal can be said to b error in law or procedure question of fact. 14. In view of the above view that the learned jurisdiction in setting asi Issue 2. The provisions unambiguous, there was those findings. We thus a judgment of the learned judgment and decree pa parties are, however, left 15. A perusal of the aforesaid jurisdiction in second appeal is of fact on the ground that finding or inexcusable the error may see also include the findings on the The jurisdiction to interfere in there is an error in law or proce a question of fact.” In a recent judgment in th m Singh, 2024 SCC Online SC 969 -13- entertain a second appeal on the us finding of fact, however gross or r may seem to be. Nor does the fact e first appellate court is upon some e make it any the less a finding of he High Court has, therefore, no re in second appeal with the findings first appellate court based upon an relevant evidence. Their Lordships d that the only ground on which such d to be competent is where there is an dure and not merely on an error on a *** ove discussion, we are clearly of the rned Single Judge exceeded his g aside the findings of the fact on ons of Section 100 being clear and was no scope for interference with us allow the appeal and set aside the rned Single Judge and affirm the e passed by the District Judge. The left to bear their own costs.” said judgments would show that the l is not to interfere with the findings ndings are erroneous, however, gross y seem to be. The findings of fact will the basis of documentary evidence. in the second appeal is only where rocedure and not merely an error on in the case of Lehna Singh vs. 69, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, - the or act me of no ngs an ips ch s an n a the his on nd ith the the he the ngs oss ill ce. ere on vs. , DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 while referr 1918, held unamended second app the case of that the firs of the trial first instanc this regard 23. the first ap Court and i While at th under Sect findings of It cannot em .278 of 2005 (O&M) e referring to the scope of interference , held that the provisions thereof b ended Section 100 of CPC, the sco nd appeal would be on restricted grou ase of Randhir Kaur (supra) was re the first appellate Court, while setting e trial Court, is required to meet the re instance. The relevant observations m egard are extracted as under:- “23. It is settled law that the Fir aside the Judgment and decree meet the reasoning given by the which in the present case ha Appellate Court. 24. xxx xxx xxx 25. In Jagannath v. Arulappa an (Dead) By Lrs., this Court has improper to allow first appeal findings of the trial court and t required to address all the issue assignment of cogent reasons.” Thus, the position of law as irst appellate Court must advert to th t and is required to address all the iss e at the same time, the High Court r Section 41 of the Act of 1918 is r ngs of fact, however gross or inexcusa nnot embark upon reappreciation of ev -14- rence under Section 41 of the Act of reof being pari materia with the he scope of interference in regular grounds, and the law laid down in was reiterated. It was however held etting aside the judgment and decree t the reasoning given by the Court of ions made by the Supreme Court in e First Appellate Court, while setting cree of the trial court, is required to y the trial court in rejecting the Will, has not been done by the First a and H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith has opined that it would be wholly eal without adverting to the specific nd that the First Appellate Court is ssues and determine the appeal upon ” w as stands crystallized is that that to the specific findings of the trial the issues by giving cogent reasons. Court in exercise of its jurisdiction 18 is restrained from interfering on excusable the error may seem to be. n of evidence and substitute its own - ct of the gular n in held ecree rt of rt in ing to ill, irst sith lly ific t is on that trial sons. ction g on o be. own DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 opinion for another per 24. below, the of the view reasons me 25. advert to th 26. issue No.1 failed to co Ex.A/2 the at Jalandha tenancy of failed to pl municipal t landlord-ten Authority possession trespasser correction o was dismis Ex.DW4/2, Chaudhary the suit pro .278 of 2005 (O&M) ion for that of the first appellate Co er permissible view was possible. Having carefully gone throug the record and after considering the e view that the instant Appeal is req ns mentioned hereinafter. Before dwelling upon the riva rt to the findings of the trial court and t The learned Trial Court non- No.1 against them primarily on th to connect the property in dispute w the dissolution deed, wherein the M landhar; (ii) did not place on record cy of Sukhjit Engineering Works o to place on record any evidence lik cipal tax paid to the Municipal Com tenant relationship before the Re ority;(v) have taken inconsistent plea ession of the defendant being pe asser;(vi) vide judgment Ex. DW4/22 ction of entry in the assessment registe dismissed; and (vii) by relying upo W4/2, it held that the father of t dhary of Yakka Khanna and his poss uit property which stood established a -15- ate Court only on the ground that rough the judgments of the courts ng the rival contentions, this Court is is required to be dismissed for the he rival contentions, it is apposite to rt and the first appellate court. -suited the plaintiffs and decided on the following grounds:(i) they pute with the property described in n the Motor Garage was stated to be record any document pertaining to orks or Colonel Thakur Singh;(iii) nce like electricity bill, water bills, l Committee; (iv) failed to establish he Rent Controller or the Appellate nt pleas in the plaint regarding the ng permissive and him being a W4/22, the suit of the plaintiffs for register of the Municipal Committee g upon the Sanads Ex.DW4/1 and r of the defendant was the First s possession remained continuous in shed and proved from the electricity - that ourts urt is r the ite to ided they ed in to be g to (iii) , blish llate the g a for ittee and irst us in ricity DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 and water c DW4/17. 27. show that i and while given detai above, law facts, howe on the anvi of law, pe pertaining with the pro detailed re misapprecia even the ca in dispute clear that 1, and the at ‘Kapurth evidence as of Colonel deciding th about the s First Appel view of the .278 of 2005 (O&M) ater charges bills placed on the file as Perusal of the judgment of th that it has dealt with all issues raised e adverting to the findings of th detailed reasons for arriving at its e, law is settled that the High Court c , however, the findings of the first ap e anvil of the grounds available, lest i w, perversity or other serious infirm ining to failure of the plaintiffs to co the property described in Ex.A-2, the f led reasons that the said finding of ppreciation of evidence. It has corre the case of the defendant in the writt spute was situated at ‘Jalandhar’. H that the various properties held by the d the property in question has been de purthala’. The findings of the learne nce as regards tenancy of Sukhjit Eng olonel Thakur Singh, are absolutely ing the lis between the parties, altho t the same in the registered partnershi Appellate Court has agreed with the of the decision of the Rent Controlle -16- file as documents Ex. DW4/3 to Ex. t of the First Appellate Court would raised before the learned trial Court, of the court of first instance, has at its own conclusions. As noticed ourt cannot intervene in findings on irst appellate court have been tested , lest it suffers from any patent error infirmity. As regards the finding s to connect the property in dispute the first Appellate Court has given ng of the trial court is based upon correctly observed that it was not e written statement that the property . Having perused, Ex. A-2, it is by the partners are described at page een defined as a motor house situate learned trial Court regarding lack of jit Engineering Works or car garage lutely irrelevant for the purpose of , although there is a clear mention tnership deed dated 25.05.1955. The th the view of the trial Court that in ntroller and Appellate Authority, the - o Ex. ould ourt, as ticed s on ested error ding spute iven upon s not perty it is page tuate ck of rage se of ntion The at in , the DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 relationship and the def on the inde based upon basis of the regarding i pleaded th defendant d status becam 28. as the owne the lower A said sanads view of th subsequent Kapurthala dispute. Th would also possession. 29. way of adv question wa that in the possession testimony, .278 of 2005 (O&M) ionship of landlord and tenant was not he defendant. However, since the sam independent cause brought by the pl d upon ownership, it has rightly procee of the documents brought on record ding inconsistent pleas are also imm ed that the possession was always dant denied the relationship of landl s became that of a trespasser. The learned trial Court has he e owner on the basis of Sanads Ex.DW ower Appellate Court correctly return nads were to be held as connected w of the fact that sanad Ex.P-1 stood equent sanads were of no conseq rthala stood divested of all rights of The water and electricity bills plac d also not be determinative of h ession. Although no issue regarding t of adverse possession was framed befo tion was decided by the learned First A in the absence of the defendant having ession being open, continuous, unin ony, and to the contrary the claim -17- as not proved between the plaintiffs he same would not have any bearing the plaintiffs for seeking possession proceeded to decide the issue, on the ecord. The findings of the trial court o immaterial, as the plaintiffs have lways permissive till the time the f landlord-tenant, and thereafter his has held the father of the defendant Ex.DW4/1 and Ex.DW4/2, however, returned the finding that even if the ected with the property in dispute, in stood issued in the year 1933, the consequence, as the Maharaja of ts of ownership qua the property in ls placed on record by the defendant, of him becoming the owner in rding the defendant being owner by before the trial court, however this First Appellate Court and it has held having stated anything regarding his , uninterrupted and hostile in his claim always being based upon the - ntiffs aring ssion n the court have the r his dant ever, f the te, in e a of ty in dant, r in r by this held g his his the DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 sanads, suc person cla requiremen peaceful, o in continui adverse to t rightful ow over the st defendant which such 30. defendant, maintainab fact a suit f proved wit allegedly re Committee that a suit title, when plaintiff to (2008) 4 records, ca shows the p R.V.E.Ven Temple an .278 of 2005 (O&M) , such plea could not be accepted n claiming adverse possession h irements i.e. nec vi, nec clam, nec pre eful, open and continuous. The advers ntinuity, in publicity and extent, to to the true owner. It must start with ful owner and be actual, visible, exc the statutory period. Perusal of the w dant would show that no date has h such adverse possession could be asc Adverting to the arguments dant, the first argument that has tainability of the suit, which according suit for declaration, on the basis of ti ed without impleading the State of edly recorded as owner in the Assessm mittee. The said argument cannot be a suit for possession can be filed wit when the Court finds that there is no s tiff to the property (see Anathula Su 8) 4 SCC 594). It is also well settl cannot be taken as evidence confe s the person liable to pay the rates and E.Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulm ple and Others (2003) 8 SCC 752). -18- epted. It is well settled law that a ion has to prove three classic precario, that is the possession is adverse possession must be adequate to prove that the possession is rt with a wrongful disposition of the le, exclusive, hostile and continued f the written statement filed by the e has been mentioned therein from be ascertained. of the learned counsel for the at has been raised is regarding ording to the learned counsel was in is of title, which could not have been ate of Punjab as party, who was ssessment Register of the Municipal ot be countenanced. It is settled law ed without seeking a declaration of is no serious cloud on the title of the la Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy, ll settled that entries in municipal e conferring title, and the same only tes and taxes of the municipality (see Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Even otherwise the defendant is - hat a assic on is uate is f the nued y the from r the rding as in been was cipal law of f the ddy, cipal only see V.P. nt is DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 precluded f in the writt of the suit regard. To statement h any entry fact is den prove the dispute”. T non-joinder that the def heirs of hi against the defendant. was for co stood in the same would documents 31. prove their accepted, that as it m the Evidenc produced f proper, the .278 of 2005 (O&M) uded from raising any such objection, e written statement, where there is no e suit in question, nor any specific ob To the contrary, the defendant in ment has inter-alia averred that, “if th try in their names in the Municipa denied, the said entry carries no w he title of the plaintiffs or their . The findings of the learned trial C joinder of necessary party, are also i the defendant had only objected to no of his father Chaudhary Hans Raj st the defendant. No appeal or cros dant. Records reveal that the dispute correction of the entries in the m in the name of their father, Shri Hus would have no bearing on the suit fi ments proving their title. The second argument regard e their title on the basis of the san as no such argument was raised as it may, it is settled law that as per t vidence Act, when a document is pro uced from any custody, which the er, then the Court may presume variou -19- ection, which is beyond its pleadings is no such mention of the dismissal ific objection has been taken in this ant in paragraph No.4 of the written “if the plaintiffs are able to prove icipal Assessment Register, which no weight and value and does not their father over the property in trial Court on the issue pertaining to also important, which would show o non-impleadment of other legal s Raj and such issue was decided r cross-objection was filed by the ispute in the suit filed by the plaintiff the municipal record, which earlier ri Hussan Lal, prior to 1993-94. The suit filed by the plaintiffs, basis the regarding the plaintiffs’ failure to e sanad Ex. P-1, can also not be raised before the Courts below. Be s per the provisions of Section 90 of t is proved to be 30 years old and is the Courts in particular consider various facts. It is pertinent to note - ings issal this ritten ove ich not ty in ng to show legal ided the intiff arlier The s the re to t be Be of nd is sider note DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 that the lea judgment, arose betw translation and keepin on record already on for additio consideratio defendant h is misconce 32. High Court not come to facts. The Volume-1, no relevan subordinate Punjabi re document i 33. 4282 min. this regard learned Fir of khasra n .278 of 2005 (O&M) the learned lower Appellate Court has ment, recorded that during the pende between the plaintiffs and the def lation of the sanad Ex. P-1. Both sub eeping in view the fact that the transl ecord by the defendant was in con dy on record as Exhibit P-1/A, the co additional evidence. Once the cou ideration the contents of the translated dant himself, the argument regarding sconceived. The reliance upon the judgm Court in the case of Pushpa Devi a ome to the aid of the defendant as the The reference to the language of t 1, Chapter-1, Part-N of the High elevance as it only mandates that rdinate to the High Court shall be Pun abi region. The same does not pre ment in Urdu language and its translati The argument regarding varia min. and wrong finding regarding a regard by the first appellate Court, is ed First Appellate Court has merely re asra no. 5700/ 4282 min. in the writte -20- urt has in paragraphs 10 to 12 of its pendency of the appeal, a dispute he defendant regarding the correct oth submitted their own translations translated copy of the sanad placed in consonance with the translation the court dismissed the application e courts below have taken into nslated sanad, as relied upon by the arding admissibility of the document judgment of the Himachal Pradesh evi and others (supra), would also he same was based upon its own e of the Court as mandated under High Court Rules and Orders, is of that the language of the Courts be Punjabi in Gurmukh script in the ot preclude the reliance upon any anslation in Gurmukhi script. g variance in khasra No.4282/1 and ding admission by the defendant in ourt, is also without any basis. The rely recorded the factum of mention written statement and has thereafter - of its spute rrect tions laced ation ation nto y the ment desh also own nder is of ourts n the any and in The ntion after DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 returned th 4281/1. Th numbers m registered d also stated testimony. instant appe 34. on the basi reasons rec 35. (i) the Cou evidence; ( by applying burden of appellant, t learned low inferences conclusions sifted throu perspective hereinabov some custo envisaged materia to .278 of 2005 (O&M) ned the finding that the said khasra The records would reveal that the ers mentioned in the plaint matched tered dissolution deed and partnershi stated that the property is comprise ony. Such finding of fact would not nt appeal. Lastly the argument regardin e basis of adverse possession, is also ns recorded above. It is well settled that findings o e Courts below have ignored mater nce; (ii) the Courts have drawn wrong plying the law erroneously; or (iii) the en of proof. Testing the arguments o llant, the Court does not find that th ed lower Appellate Court are perv ences or erroneous application of lusions, the lower Appellate Court is through the evidence and recorded i ective. The findings of the First A nabove, cannot be stated to be contr custom or usage having the force aged under Section 41 of the Punja to the unamended Section 100 of -21- hasra number is part of khasra no. at the area comprising in the khasra tched with the sanad Ex.P-1-A and nership deed and the defendant has mprised in khasra No.4282, in his ld not warrant any inference in the garding ownership of the defendant s also without any substance, for the dings of fact can only be disturbed if material evidence or acted on no wrong inferences from proved facts (iii) the Courts have wrongly cast the ents of the learned counsel for the that the findings arrived at by the e perverse or based upon wrong n of law. Before arriving at its ourt is found to have meticulously rded its own findings in the correct irst Appellate Court, as discussed e contrary to settled law or against orce of law or on any other ground Punjab Courts Act which is pari 00 of the Code of Civil Procedure. - a no. hasra and t has his n the dant r the if n no facts t the r the the rong t its usly rrect ssed ainst ound ari dure. DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side RSA No.278 Having car Appellate C opinion tha wrong infer 36. decree doe present app 12th Februar ‘raj-dinesh’ Whe Whe .278 of 2005 (O&M) ng carefully examined the reasons r llate Court as extracted hereinabove, ion that the same cannot be stated t g inferences or erroneous application o In view thereof, it is evident e does not suffer from infirmity or nt appeal fails and is dismissed. bruary, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: -22- sons recorded by the learned First bove, this Court is of the considered tated to be perverse or based upon ation of law. vident that impugned judgment and ity or illegality, and as such, the ( ROHIT KAPOOR ) JUDGE Yes No - First ered upon and , the DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 12:09 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side