RSA-2256-2000 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2256-2000 (O&M) Reserved on 12.09.2025 Date of decision: 16.09.2025 Rajinder Singh and another ...Appellants Versus Bihari Lal and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Harjeet Singh Minhas, Advocate and Mr. P.K. Madaan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Anuj Balian, Advocate for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plain&ffs against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, whereby their suit for permanent injunc&on in re- spect of the suit property was dismissed in part. 2. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. To avoid confusion, par&es shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court. 3. The plain&ffs claimed ownership and possession over three plots bearing Nos. 57, 58, and 59, situated in village Ugala, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala, asser&ng that Plot No. 57 was purchased by plain&ff No.1 via sale deed dated 04.07.1966; and Plots No. 58 & 59 were purchased by plain&ff No.2 through registered sale deed dated 05.02.1981. The property was described in the site plan (Ex.P-2) as marked by leAers ABCD. Plain&ffs Page N: 1 of total 5 Pages Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.16 15:15 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-2256-2000 (O&M) alleged that the defendants were aAemp&ng to carve out an illegal passage through their plots to access a public Rasta (pathway) situated on the west- ern side and to restrain the defendants from doing so, prayed for decree of permanent injunc&on. 4. The defendants denied plain&ffs’ ownership and possession over the plots and contested the correctness of site plan Ex.P-2. They relied on their own site plan (Ex.D-9), asser&ng that plain&ffs were in possession only of land marked MNOP in Ex.D-9. It was pleaded that a 10 E. wide street existed between the proper&es of both par&es. The defendants property lay to the south and west of the plain&ffs' plots and was in posses- sion since 1950. They also referred to house allotments and sale deeds in their favour and denied interfering with any land possessed by the plain&ffs. 5. Shri Amarjeet Singh, Advocate, was appointed Local Commis- sioner, during trial proceedings to ascertain the factual posi&on on the spot. He submiAed his report (Ex.D-8) along with a site plan (Ex.D-7). 6. The Trial Court, aEer recording evidence and considering the materials on record, dismissed the suit on 15.09.1997, holding that the plain&ffs failed to prove their ownership and possession over the land de- scribed in Ex.P-2. 7. In appeal, the First Appellate Court, by judgment dated 16.11.1999, partly allowed the appeal by relying on the Local Commis- sioner’s report and a statement made by counsel for the defendants that they had no claim over the area marked BCEX in Ex.D-7. The Appellate Court decreed the suit only to that extent, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plain&ffs' possession over the said por&on. The rest of the plain&ffs' claim was rejected. Page N: 2 of total 5 Pages Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.16 15:15 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-2256-2000 (O&M) 8. Before this court, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the courts below mis-appreciated the evidence and failed to recognize that the plain&ffs had purchased the en&re area comprising plots No.57, 58, and 59. In support, he sought to rely on CM No.14905-C-2012, for placing on record copies of Parchi Allotments for plots 57, 58, and 59. 9. The applica&on (CM No.14905-C-2012) was not seriously op- posed by the respondents and is accordingly allowed. The Parchi Allot- ments and their English transla&ons are taken on record. 10. In response to the appellants' conten&ons, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the plain&ffs failed to establish that the land claimed by them formed part of plots No. 57, 58, and 59. The Parchi allot- ments relied upon by the plain&ffs merely indicate the total area of the plots without providing any boundaries or measurements. Crucially, the plain&ffs did not conduct any demarca&on to correlate the land in their possession with the plots men&oned in the sale documents. 11. Learned counsel further emphasized that the Local Commis- sioner, appointed by the Trial Court in the presence of both par&es, sub- miAed a detailed report (Ex.D-8) and site plan (Ex.D-7). Despite extensive cross-examina&on, no material discrepancy was revealed to discredit the report. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court rightly relied on the Commis- sioner's report, and no error can be aAributed to it. Dismissal of the appeal was thus sought. 12. This court has considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the report carefully. 13. The crux of the maAer is whether the plain&ffs established &- tle and possession over the en&re suit property claimed by them. A perusal of the Parchi Allotments reveals only the total area of plots No.57, 58, and Page N: 3 of total 5 Pages Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.16 15:15 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-2256-2000 (O&M) 59, without any reference to boundaries or dimensions. Moreover, the plain&ffs did not get any demarca&on conducted to link the land they oc- cupy with the said plots. Their failure to do so weakens the eviden&ary value of the allotment Parchis. 14. The site plan (Ex.P-2) relied on by the plain&ffs was disputed and unsupported by official records. On the other hand, the site plan (Ex.D- 7) prepared by the Local Commissioner, appointed with consent of both par&es, was more reliable. The Local Commissioner’s report was compre- hensive, based on site inspec&on in the presence of both sides, and was not discredited during cross-examina&on. 15. Furthermore, plain&ffs’ own witnesses made significant ad- missions during cross-examina&on. PW-1 Harbans Singh and PW-2 Bant Ram both admiAed to the existence of a street on the eastern side of plain- &ffs’ land. PW-2 also admiAed the presence of a founda&on wall separa&ng the plain&ffs’ and defendants’ proper&es on the southern side. 16. Further, the Appellate Court noted that PW-3 Manjeet Singh, one of the plain&ffs, admiAed during cross-examina&on that the length of their plot on the eastern and western sides was 64 feet. A comparison with the Local Commissioner’s report and site plan (Ex.D-7) confirmed the exis- tence of open land between the plain&ffs' and defendants' proper&es on the eastern side. This supported the defendants' claim regarding the pres- ence of a street, which was further corroborated by the tes&mony of DW-2 Sugna Chand and the demarca&on report (Ex.D-1). 17. The First Appellate Court rightly concluded that plain&ffs had failed to prove that the en&re area claimed by them formed part of plots No. 57, 58, and 59. The injunc&on was limited to the por&on shown as BCEX in Ex.D-7, based on the clear admission by the defendants' counsel that they had no claim over that area. Page N: 4 of total 5 Pages Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.16 15:15 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-2256-2000 (O&M) 18. These findings are concurrent findings of fact based on reli- able local commissioner's report and admissions made by the plain&ffs’ own witnesses. 19. This court concludes that there is no perversity or illegality in the apprecia&on of evidence by the courts below. The scope of interference by the High Court is limited to substan&al ques&ons of law, unless there is material illegality in apprecia&ng the evidence on record. Nothing to this effect is found by this Court. which are not raised in the present appeal. 20. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present Regular Second Appeal. The judgment and decree dated 16.11.1999 passed by the First Appellate Court, modifying the judgment of the Trial Court dated 15.09.1997, are affirmed. The appeal stands dis- missed. No order as to costs. 16.09.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh/Nee ka Tuteja JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Page N: 5 of total 5 Pages Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.16 15:15 I agree to specified portions of this document