IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA-944-1995 (O&M) Tek Chand and others . . . . Appellants Vs. Gurdial Chand and others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 25.02.2026 Pronounced on: 05.03.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate, for appellants No.1, 2 & 4. Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate, for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by four out of six original defendants challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff– Gurdial Chand was decreed by the learned trial Court on 03.11.1993, and the said decree was affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 13.02.1995. 2. The record reveals that the suit property measuring 34 kanal 5 marla situated in the revenue estate of Village Pakhowal Kothian, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur is admi5edly owned by the Central Government. The plain6ff, however, claimed to be in cul6va6ng possession of the said land as a tenant for a considerable period and, alleging interference by the defendants, ins6tuted the suit seeking protec6on of his possession by way of permanent injunc6on. 3. The defendants contested the suit by denying the possession of the plain6ff and asser6ng their own possession over the suit property. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.03.05 15:23 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh RSA-944-1995 2026:PHHC:033075 4. Both the Courts below, upon apprecia6on of oral as well as documentary evidence, recorded a concurrent finding that the plain6ff con6nued to be reflected in possession in the revenue record up to the crop of Rabi 1990, whereas entries showing possession of the defendants surfaced only from Kharif 1990 onwards. The Courts below further observed that there was no sa6sfactory explana6on or suppor6ng material jus6fying the sudden change in khasra girdawari entries in favour of the defendants a:er a long period of entries recording possession of the plain6ff. On that basis, the suit was decreed and the decree was affirmed in appeal. 5. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellants contends that once the revenue record from Kharif 1990 reflected possession of the defendants, the Courts below erred in gran6ng injunc6on in favour of the plain6ff. It is argued that the findings suffer from misreading of revenue entries and warrant interference. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plain6ff submits that the findings recorded are purely factual, based on consistent revenue entries and apprecia6on of evidence, and therefore, no substan6al ques6on of law arises for considera6on in the present appeal. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. 8. It is a se5led principle that in a suit for injunc6on simpliciter rela6ng to immovable property, the determina6ve factor is possession of the par6es on the date of ins6tu6on of the suit. The record demonstrates that the suit was ins6tuted on 12.10.1989, at which 6me the revenue entries up to Rabi 1990 con6nued to record possession of the plain6ff. Entries rela6ng to Rabi crop are ordinarily prepared in the months of February–March, whereas entries for Kharif crop are made in September–October. Consequently, the subsequent entries reflec6ng possession of the defendants from Kharif 1990 cannot displace the posi6on of possession as it existed on the date of ins6tu6on of the suit. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.03.05 15:23 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh RSA-944-1995 2026:PHHC:033075 9. Khasra girdawari entries, though not conclusive proof of 6tle, carry significant eviden6ary value regarding possession, par6cularly when they exhibit con6nuity over a long period. A sudden change in such entries, unsupported by cogent material or lawful process, cannot by itself be treated as proof of actual change of possession. The Courts below have rightly scru6nized this aspect and have recorded a finding that the altera6on in entries lacked jus6fica6on. 10. The Courts below have also taken note of the conduct of the defendants in ins6tu6ng a separate suit a:er grant of injunc6on in favour of the plain6ff, while concealing the earlier injunc6on order and securing an ex parte order, which was subsequently vacated on 23.08.1990. Such conduct lends further support to the inference that the defendants a5empted to disturb the se5led possession of the plain6ff, rather than establish lawful possession. 11. The findings recorded by both Courts below are thus based on proper apprecia6on of revenue record, surrounding circumstances, and conduct of the par6es. No perversity, misreading of evidence, or legal infirmity has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference in the limited jurisdic6on of this Court under Sec6on 100 CPC. The appeal essen6ally seeks re- apprecia6on of evidence, which is impermissible in second appellate jurisdic6on in the absence of a substan6al ques6on of law. 12. Accordingly, finding no substan6al ques6on of law arising for considera6on, the present appeal is dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 05.03.2026 JUDGE
 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Uploaded on: 05.03.2026 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.03.05 15:23 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh