IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2736-2023 (O&M) Sanjeev Kumar Duggal . . . . Appellant Vs. Ravail Singh and Others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 17.02.2026 Pronounced on: 19.02.2026 Pronounced fully/opera8ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The plain!ff has filed the present Regular Second Appeal assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, whereby his suit for per- manent injunc!on has been dismissed. The suit ins!tuted by the appellant- plain!ff was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2018, and the appeal preferred thereagainst has also been dismissed by the learned Addi!onal District Judge, Amritsar on 06.02.2023. The appellant seeks reversal of the concurrent findings. 2. The case set up by the plain!ff was that he purchased land measur- ing 2 kanal 9 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 14/23/2 situated at village Pakharpura, Tehsil Majitha, District Amritsar through a registered sale deed dated 28.10.2002 and that muta!on was sanc!oned in his favour. He asserted his ownership and possession and pleaded that part of the land had been sold to a third party and that two halls had been constructed over a por!on of the property, while the remaining land was lying vacant in the shape of plots. His grievance was that the defendants, whose property lies on the southern side, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.20 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2736-2023 (O&M) were threatening to forcibly carve out a passage through his land at points marked in the site plan, despite having no right, !tle or interest therein. 3. The defendants contested the suit by asser!ng that the passage in dispute had existed since the incep!on of the colony and was reserved for in- gress and egress of residents. It was further pleaded that the plain!ff had re- ceived ₹2,00,000/- through cheque No.226504 dated 27.11.2006 towards the passage and that the same cons!tuted the only approach to the main road for inhabitants of the locality. The correctness of the plain!ff’s site plan was dis- puted and the plain!ff was accused of aAemp!ng encroachment over a com- mon street. 4. ABer framing issues and recording evidence led by par!es, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plain!ff failed to prove exclusive pos- session over the disputed por!on and that the defence version regarding exist- ence of a common passage appeared more probable. 5. The First Appellate Court, being the final Court of fact, re-evaluated the evidence and affirmed the findings. Par!cular emphasis was laid upon ma- terial contradic!ons in the plain!ff’s tes!mony. During cross-examina!on, the plain!ff disowned construc!ons earlier claimed to be part of his property, ad- miAed lack of familiarity with the present condi!on of the site and expressed inability to iden!fy the property in photographs. The defence, on the other hand, examined independent witnesses and bank officials proving encashment of ₹2,00,000/- and adduced tes!mony suppor!ng existence and usage of the common passage. The Appellate Court thus concluded that the plain!ff had failed to discharge the burden of proving exclusive possession and that no ground existed to interfere with the trial Court’s decision. 6. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellant contends that documentary evidence including the sale deed and revenue entries established the plain!ff’s ownership and possession and that stray ad- missions in cross-examina!on were wrongly relied upon to defeat substan!ve documentary evidence. It is argued that the alleged payment of ₹2,00,000/- did NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.20 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2736-2023 (O&M) not create any legally enforceable easement and that the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from mis-apprecia!on of evidence giving rise to a sub- stan!al ques!on of law. 7. Having heard learned counsel and examined the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. 8. A suit for permanent injunc!on founded on possession necessarily requires proof of actual, lawful and exclusive possession on the date of ins!tu- !on of the suit. Where the nature of possession is disputed and evidence indic- ates existence of a common user, injunc!on cannot be granted merely on the basis of !tle. The Supreme Court !me and again has authorita!vely held that in- junc!on simpliciter is not maintainable, where possession is clouded or where the dispute relates to compe!ng rights over user of property. 9. In the present case, both Courts below have concurrently held that the plain!ff failed to establish exclusive possession over the por!on alleged to be threatened. The plain!ff’s own admissions materially undermined his pleaded case. Once the plain!ff’s possession itself became doubFul, the burden to establish a beAer right to injunc!on remained undischarged. 10. Equally significant is the defence evidence indica!ng long-standing user of the disputed por!on as a passage by residents. Law recognises that easementry rights may arise not only by express grant but also by implied grant, necessity, prescrip!on or by conduct of par!es. The existence of a common pas- sage used as the only access to the main road cons!tutes a relevant circum- stance nega!ving a claim of exclusive possession. Where a way is shown to be a common passage necessary for beneficial enjoyment of dominant tenements, Courts must be slow in gran!ng injunc!on that would obstruct such user. 11. The argument that payment of ₹2,00,000/- does not create an easement also does not advance the appellant’s case. The finding of the Courts below is not founded merely upon payment but upon cumula!ve evidence of long-standing existence, public user, and lack of exclusive possession of the plain!ff. These are pure findings of fact based on apprecia!on of evidence. Page 3 of 4 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.20 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2736-2023 (O&M) 12. At this stage, the scope of interference under Sec!on 100 CPC as- sumes significance. The Supreme Court has consistently held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or resul!ng from misapplica!on of legal prin- ciples. Re-apprecia!on of evidence is impermissible. 13. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Courts below are plausible, supported by evidence and free from perversity. No material evid- ence has been ignored nor has any inadmissible material been relied upon. The aAempt of the appellant is essen!ally to invite re-apprecia!on of evidence, which is beyond the jurisdic!on of this Court in second appeal. 14. Upon considera!on of the maAer, it is found that no substan!al ques!on of law arises for considera!on. The issues involved in the lis are purely factual and stand conclusively determined by concurrent findings. 15. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the appellant has failed to establish any perversity, legal infirmity or substan!al ques!on of law warran!ng interference with the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. 16. Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Pending applica!ons, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 19.02.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No Uploaded on.: 20.02.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.20 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document