IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 120 RSA-2388-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:31.10.2025 Bant Singh (since deceased) through LRs …..Appellants Vs. Balbir Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. H.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal, filed by the Plain#ff (Appellant), challenges the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 2. The Plain#ff ins#tuted a suit for permanent injunc#on claiming to be the owner in possession of the suit property, relying on possession (including an electricity connec#on) and alleging that the property originally belonged to Basta Singh son of Nihala Singh son of Khazan Singh. The Plain#ff contended that Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 had fraudulently executed sale deeds (Ex. P13 and Ex. P14) in favor of Defendant No. 10, taking advantage of an erroneous revenue entry, where Basta Singh's father was wrongly recorded as Kishan Singh instead of Nihal Singh. The Plain#ff sought an injunc#on to restrain interference with his possession. 3. The Defendants (Respondents) denied the Plain#ff's #tle and possession. They asserted their own ownership and possession, claiming that Basta Singh, son of Nihala Singh, son of Khazan Singh, was their predecessor-in-interest. They contested the Plain#ff's version of the facts, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.11.03 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2388-2025 (O&M) -2- maintaining that the devia#on in the jamabandi (revenue record) of 1994- 95, which wrongly named Basta Singh's father as Kishan Singh, was a clerical error that did not divest their righ;ul legal #tle derived from Basta Singh son of Nihala Singh. 4. The Trial Court, framed necessary issues, appraised the evidence, and dismissed the suit on November 1, 2019, holding that the Plain#ff had no concern whatsoever over the suit land. The First Appellate Court, on February 20, 2025, affirmed the Trial Court's findings and dismissed the Plain#ff's appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant (Plain#ff) contended that both Courts below commi>ed an error in law and fact by failing to appreciate the evidence in the right perspec#ve. It was essen#ally argued that the concurrent findings are perverse and require interference by this Court. 6. This Court, siBng in Second Appeal, must determine if the concurrent findings are vi#ated by any illegality, perversity, or failure to consider material evidence, thus giving rise to a substan#al ques#on of law. 7. A suit for permanent injunc#on based on #tle and possession requires the Plain#ff to establish a clear and unimpeachable #tle or, at the very least, a se>led juridical possession. Both Courts have categorically found that the Plain#ff did not have any concern whatsoever over the suit property. This finding is a finding of fact based on the apprecia#on of evidence. 8. The Appellate Court specifically noted that the Plain#ff's predecessor was Basta Singh son of Nihala son of Khazan, as corroborated by the jamabandis from 1979-80 up to 1989-90. Crucially, the Courts below accepted the Defendants' claim that the subsequent entry in the jamabandi for 1994-95, which wrongly recorded the father's name as Kishan Singh, was a clerical error by the revenue authori#es. The legal principle is well- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.11.03 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2388-2025 (O&M) -3- se>led that a wrong entry in a revenue record cannot ex#nguish or divest a legal right or #tle vested in the true owner, par#cularly when earlier, consistent records support the owner's claim. 9. The Courts below have further highlighted that plain#ff failed to challenge the sale deeds (Ex. P13 and Ex. P14) executed in favor of Defendant No. 10 by the other Defendants. If the Plain#ff truly claimed ownership based on the Basta Singh son of Nihala Singh succession line, he ought to have sought a declara#on to set aside these documents. Seeking merely an injunc#on without a challenge to the root transac#on strongly suggests a deficiency in the Plain#ff's claimed #tle or standing (locus standi). 10. The concurrent findings of fact, supported by a proper apprecia#on of revenue records and oral evidence, do not present any issue of perversity or illegality. This Court cannot re-appraise the evidence merely because an alterna#ve view is possible. The conten#ons raised by the Appellant do not raise any substan#al ques#on of law necessary for interference under the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. Having regard to the me#culous and concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, which are based on a sound apprecia#on of the evidence on record, this Court finds no legal ground to interfere with the outcome. The appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applica#on(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE October 31, 2025 Nee#ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.11.03 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document