IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 105 RSA-1873-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 27.04.2026 Bir Singh and Others …..Appellants Vs. Shamlat Thula Johari, Pa9, Go:a, Village Dha:r (thr its representa:ve) and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plain"ffs-appellants challenging the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, whereby their suit for declara"on with consequen"al relief of permanent injunc"on in respect of the suit property came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 03.03.2016, and the appeal preferred there-against was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 02.02.2023, affirming the findings returned by the Trial Court. 2. The case set up by the plain"ffs, in brief, is that they are owners in possession of land measuring 1 Kanal 10 Marlas falling in Khasra No. 313, which, according to them, had been acquired by way of exchange with their land comprised in Khasra Nos. 376 and 377. On this premise, they sought a declara"on of ownership along with consequen"al relief of permanent injunc"on restraining the defendants from interfering in their alleged possession. 3. The defendants contested the suit by asser"ng that the suit NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.29 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1873-2023 (O&M) land forms part of Khasra No. 313 belonging to Shamlat Thula Johari and that they are in actual physical possession thereof. 4. On the basis of pleadings and evidence led by the par"es, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plain"ffs failed to prove either their ownership or possession over the suit property. The learned First Appellate Court, upon re-apprecia"on of the en"re evidence, affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 5. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspec"ve and have erroneously discarded the oral tes"mony led on behalf of the plain"ffs to prove exchange and possession. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the appellants and has gone through the record with their assistance. However, no merit is found in the submissions advanced. 7. A perusal of the record shows that the en"re claim of the plain"ffs is founded upon an alleged exchange of land. However, no documentary evidence has been brought on record to substan"ate such exchange. There is no entry in the revenue record reflec"ng the alleged exchange, nor is there any wri:en document evidencing the same. The case of the plain"ffs rests primarily on oral asser"ons. 8. The oral evidence led by the plain"ffs does not inspire confidence. The witnesses examined by them have, in their cross- examina"on, admi:ed that they had no personal knowledge of the alleged exchange and that their statements were based on what they had heard from others. They also admi:ed lack of knowledge regarding the khasra numbers and conceded that as per the revenue record, the defendants are shown to be owners of the suit land. Even the plain"ff himself admi:ed that the land was never demarcated in his presence and that the exchange Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.29 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1873-2023 (O&M) was not effected by all the co-sharers. Such admissions materially weaken the case set up by the plain"ffs. 9. Furthermore, the acts relied upon by the plain"ffs to establish possession, such as tying animals or storing dung, are wholly insufficient to prove se:led possession in the eyes of law. Possession must be established by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. 10. It is a se:led principle of law that a plain"ff must succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defence. The burden squarely lay upon the plain"ffs to prove their ownership as well as possession over the suit land, which they have failed to discharge. 11. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on proper apprecia"on of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or misreading of evidence. No substan"al ques"on of law arises for considera"on in the present appeal so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdic"on under Sec"on 100 CPC. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs. All pending miscellaneous applica"ons, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 27, 2026 Nee"ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.29 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document