RSA-1299-2022 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1299-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.04.2026 Indirawa# Jaglan @ Indira Wa# ...Appellant Versus Prem Singh Bhoria ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Bindu Bala, Advocate for Dr. Vikas Rohal, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant–plain#ff against the concurrent judgments & decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby her suit for recovery of ₹72,942/- along with interest has been dismissed. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat vide judgment dated 09.08.2018 dismissed the suit, and the said findings have been affirmed by the learned Addi#onal District Judge, Panipat vide judgment dated 01.09.2021. 2. The case of the plain#ff, in brief, was that she is owner of a residen#al plot and during the course of construc#on, she discovered that the width of her plot was short to the extent of about 5 inches as compared to the sanc#oned measurement. It was alleged that such deficiency had occurred on account of encroachment by the defendant, whose adjoining plot had already been constructed earlier. According to the plain#ff, the defendant had acknowledged the said encroachment and agreed to compensate her by paying an amount of ₹72,942/-, but later resiled from his promise, compelling her to ins#tute the suit. 3. The defendant, on the other hand, categorically denied any YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.22 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1299-2022 (O&M) [2] encroachment and asserted that his construc#on had been raised strictly in accordance with the demarca#on carried out by the competent authority and the sanc#oned plan. It was further pleaded that the plain#ff had herself accepted possession of her plot with specified measurements and had raised construc#on aDer obtaining requisite approvals, and therefore, no liability could be fastened upon the defendant. 4. On the basis of pleadings, the trial Court framed the necessary issues and upon apprecia#on of evidence led by both par#es, returned a finding that although some discrepancy in measurement of the plain#ff’s plot could be no#ced, the plain#ff had failed to establish that such deficiency was the result of encroachment by the defendant. The suit was accordingly dismissed. 5. The first Appellate Court, upon reappraisal of the en#re evidence, concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record and have erroneously discarded the material which clearly revealed encroachment by the defendant. It has been contended that the discrepancy in measurement stood duly proved through witnesses and site plans and, therefore, the plain#ff was en#tled to the claimed amount. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the record, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal does not merit interference. 8. It is trite that in a suit founded on allega#ons of encroachment, the burden squarely lies upon the plain#ff to establish not only the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.22 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1299-2022 (O&M) [3] existence of deficiency in her property but also to conclusively prove that such deficiency is aIributable to the act of the defendant. 9. In the present case, even if it is assumed that the width of the plain#ff’s plot was found to be marginally less than the sanc#oned measurement, there is no reliable and cogent evidence to demonstrate that the defendant had encroached upon the said por#on. The evidence led by the plain#ff falls short of establishing this essen#al link. 10. The Courts below have rightly observed that no authorita#ve demarca#on, conducted in accordance with law and in the presence of both par#es, has been proved on record so as to conclusively fix responsibility upon the defendant. The tes#monies of witnesses relied upon by the plain#ff do not inspire confidence to the extent necessary to dislodge the consistent stand of the defendant that his construc#on was in accordance with official demarca#on. 11. Further, it is not in dispute that the plain#ff had purchased the plot with specified dimensions and had obtained sanc#on of the site plan as well as necessary cer#ficates from the competent authority before raising construc#on. The absence of any contemporaneous objec#on regarding shortage in area significantly undermines the subsequent claim raised by the plain#ff. If at all there was any discrepancy in the area or dimensions of the plot, the appropriate remedy would have been against the alloKng authority, which admiIedly has not even been impleaded as a party to the present proceedings. 12. The non-joinder of the concerned development authority, which was responsible for allotment, demarca#on and approval of construc#on, further weakens the case of the plain#ff and renders the claim legally untenable. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.22 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1299-2022 (O&M) [4] 13. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on proper apprecia#on of evidence and are neither perverse nor contrary to law. This Court, in exercise of jurisdic#on under Sec#on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not sit as a Court of re-apprecia#on of evidence. Interference is warranted only where a substan#al ques#on of law arises, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is sa#sfied that the appellant has failed to make out any ground warran#ng interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. No substan#al ques#on of law arises for considera#on. 15. Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. 21.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.22 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document