RSA-2840-2024 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2840-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.04.2026 Rajinder Kumar and another ...Appellants Versus Municipal Corpora*on, Yamuna Nagar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikas Bairagi, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant(s) – plain*ffs assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned Courts below, whereby the suit for declara*on and consequen*al relief of permanent injunc*on filed by them came to be dismissed and the said findings were affirmed in appeal. 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudica*on of the present appeal are that the plain*ffs ins*tuted a suit seeking declara*on to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit property and for consequen*al injunc*on restraining the defendants from interfering in their alleged possession. The founda*on of the claim was an alleged exchange of land between the predecessor-in-interest of the plain*ffs and the Gram Panchayat, purportedly effected through a resolu*on. 3. The defendants contested the suit, inter alia, pleading that the alleged exchange was void being in viola*on of statutory provisions, par*cularly absence of prior approval of the competent authority as mandated under the governing rules rela*ng to village common lands. 4. The learned trial Court, a@er apprecia*ng oral as well as documentary evidence, dismissed the suit holding that the plain*ffs failed to establish a valid exchange or lawful *tle. The First Appellate Court, upon YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2840-2024 (O&M) [2] reappraisal of the en*re evidence, affirmed the findings so recorded. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspec*ve and have ignored material evidence demonstra*ng possession and the exchange effected through Panchayat resolu*on. 6. On considering the submission and perusing the records, this court finds no merits in the appeal 7. Before adver*ng to the merits, it is apposite to reiterate the seEled posi*on of law governing the jurisdic*on of this Court under Sec*on 100 CPC. A second appeal lies only on a substan*al ques*on of law. The High Court does not act as a Court of re-apprecia*on of evidence unless the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or suffer from patent illegality. 8. It is equally well seEled that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible. 9. In present case, upon perusal of the record and judgments passed by the Courts below, the following aspects emerge: (i) Validity of exchange : Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the alleged exchange of land was not in conformity with the mandatory provisions governing transfer of Panchayat land. The evidence on record clearly establishes that no prior approval of the competent authority was obtained. Such requirement is not a mere procedural formality but a mandatory condi*on. Any transac*on in contraven*on thereof is void and non-est in the eyes of law. (ii) Absence of tle : The plain*ffs have failed to produce any cogent documentary evidence to establish transfer of *tle in their favour. AdmiEedly, the revenue record con*nued to reflect the ownership of the Gram Panchayat / Municipal Corpora*on. It is trite law that entries in revenue record, though not conclusive, carry presump*ve value, and in YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2840-2024 (O&M) [3] absence of any valid document of *tle, cannot be displaced merely on the basis of oral asser*ons. (iii) Nature of relief sought : The suit filed by the plain*ffs was essen*ally one for declara*on without establishing a clear legal right or *tle. The Courts below have rightly applied the mandate of Sec*on 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 and held the suit to be not maintainable in absence of a legally enforceable right. Declara*on cannot be granted in vacuum without proof of *tle. (iv) Findings based on evidence : Both the Courts below have meculously examined the enre evidence and have recorded findings, which are neither perverse nor based on misreading of evidence. Rather, the conclusions are well reasoned and supported by material available on record. 10. The appellant has failed to point out any substan*al ques*on of law arising in the present appeal. The issues raised pertain purely to apprecia*on of evidence and factual determina*on, which already stand concluded by concurrent findings. No perversity, illegality, or jurisdic*onal error has been demonstrated warran*ng interference by this Court. 11. So far as the applica*on [CM 4608-C of 2026] under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading addi*onal evidence is concerned, the same deserve to be declined. The documents sought to be produced are admiEedly within the knowledge and possession of the appellants at the stage of trial. No due diligence has been shown, nor has it been established that such documents are necessary for pronouncing judgment. In absence of sa*sfac*on of the statutory requirements, the applica*on does not merit acceptance. 12. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the alleged exchange is void for non-compliance of mandatory statutory provisions; the plain*ffs have failed to establish *tle or lawful possession; and the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2840-2024 (O&M) [4] concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from no infirmity warran*ng interference. No substan*al ques*on of law arises for considera*on in the present appeal. 13. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. 06.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document