RSA-2833-2022 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2833-2022 (O&M) Himanshu Sharma ...Appellant Versus Jawahar Saini ...Respondent Reserved on: 13.07.2026 Pronounced on: 14.07.2026 Pronounced fully/opera2ve part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Gulshan Nandwani, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The plain1ff – appellant has filed the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees, whereby his suit for permanent injunc1on has been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. The plain1ff ins1tuted the suit claiming ownership of the suit property on the strength of a registered Will dated 22.09.2010 allegedly executed by his grandmother, Smt. Shan1 Devi, and pleaded that he was in possession of the suit property. A decree of permanent injunc1on was sought restraining the defendant from interfering in such possession. 3. The defendant resisted the suit by asser1ng that Smt. Shan1 Devi had earlier executed an agreement to sell in his favour, delivered possession pursuant thereto and that he had remained in se;led possession ever since. 4. Both the Courts, on apprecia1on of the evidence, dismissed the suit. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the judgments passed by the Courts below along with the material YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.14 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2833-2022 (O&M) [2] placed on record, this Court finds no ground to issue no1ce of mo1on. 6. The controversy in the present suit was essen1ally confined to the plain1ff's en1tlement to a decree of permanent injunc1on. It is well se;led that in a suit for injunc1on based on possession, the plain1ff is required to establish that he was in lawful or se;led possession of the property on the date of ins1tu1on of the suit. The relief cannot be granted merely on the strength of an asserted 1tle, where possession itself remains unproved. 7. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plain1ff failed to discharge the aforesaid burden. The finding is not founded merely upon apprecia1on of oral tes1mony but is supported by simultaneous documentary evidence produced by the defendant. The record no1ced by the Courts below reveals that the electricity connec1on at the suit property stood in the name of the defendant much prior to ins1tu1on of the suit; the corresponding electricity bills were produced for the relevant period; and the Local Commissioner appointed during the proceedings found the premises in occupa1on consistent with the defendant's version, including the existence of an electricity meter in his name and a hospital being run from the premises. These circumstances have been duly corroborated by the photographs placed on record. On the contrary, despite asser1ng possession over a substan1al constructed property, the plain1ff failed to produce any documentary material demonstra1ng his actual occupa1on thereof. 8. The submission that the defendant himself admi;ed the plain1ff's possession by seeking possession in the counter-claim also does not advance the appellant's case. As no1ced by the first appellate Court, according to the plain1ff's own pleaded case, he had already been YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.14 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2833-2022 (O&M) [3] dispossessed before the counter-claim came to be filed. The relief claimed in the counter-claim was, therefore, intended to secure complete legal relief flowing from the alleged agreement to sell and cannot, in the facts of the present case, be construed as an admission regarding the plain1ff's possession on the date of ins1tu1on of the suit. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also ques1oned the reliance placed by the Courts below upon the agreement to sell set up by the defendant. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said controversy need not detain this Court. The validity, enforceability or legal effect of the alleged agreement to sell is the subject ma;er of separate proceedings for specific performance. The present appeal arises only from dismissal of a suit for permanent injunc1on. Once the plain1ff failed to establish his own possession over the suit property on the date of ins1tu1on of the suit, the ques1on whether the defendant ul1mately succeeds or fails in establishing his rights under the agreement to sell becomes wholly immaterial for deciding the plain1ff's en1tlement to an injunc1on. Any observa1on touching upon the merits of the agreement to sell or the rights flowing therefrom shall naturally abide by the adjudica1on in the pending proceedings. 10. Thus viewed, the concurrent conclusion that the plain1ff was not en1tled to the discre1onary relief of permanent injunc1on rests on an independent and legally sustainable founda1on, namely, failure to establish possession. The said finding is purely one of fact based upon apprecia1on of oral and documentary evidence and has not been shown to be either perverse, based on no evidence or suffering from any misapplica1on of se;led legal principles. 11. It is trite that the jurisdic1on of this Court under Sec1on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to substan1al ques1ons of law. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.14 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2833-2022 (O&M) [4] Concurrent findings of fact cannot be reopened merely because another view on the evidence is possible. Unless the findings recorded by the Courts below are demonstrated to be perverse or contrary to the record, interference is wholly unwarranted. No such infirmity has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant. 12. Consequently, this Court is sa1sfied that the appeal does not raise any substan1al ques1on of law within the meaning of Sec1on 100 CPC. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of any merits. Pending miscellaneous applica1on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 14.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 14.07.2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.14 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document