RSA-3265-2025 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3265-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.07.2026 Gurbachan Singh ...Appellant Versus Harnek Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) It is the defendant’s second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as the suit for possession of the property in dispute as filed by the plain7ffs (respondents herein) was decreed by the learned trial Court on 19.07.2022 and the appeal preferred by the defendant – appellant was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 04.09.2025, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that both the Courts below have misread the evidence on record while decreeing the suit. It is argued that at the 7me of passing of the decree dated 06.05.1995, no passage had been provided to the land allo?ed to the appellant- defendant and, therefore, his possession over the suit property could not have been held to be unauthorized. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and aAer perusing the record, this Court finds no merit in the aforesaid conten7on. 4. The suit was ins7tuted by the plain7ffs seeking possession of land measuring 2 kanals 16 marlas on the strength of their 7tle. Their case was that they had become owners of the suit property by virtue of the civil YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3265-2025 (O&M) [2] Court decree dated 06.05.1995 as well as the subsequent revenue entries reflected in the jamabandi for the year 2013-14. It was further pleaded that the appellant-defendant had illegally encroached upon the said land, which fact stood established from the demarca7on report dated 28.02.2017. The appellant, on the other hand, disputed the plain7ffs' en7tlement and claimed that his possession was lawful. 5. The learned trial Court, upon apprecia7on of the oral as well as documentary evidence, decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court, being the final Court on facts, independently re-appreciated the en7re evidence and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court by observing as under:- “14. Through the instant suit, plain7ff has sought decree for possession of the land measuring 2 Kanal 16 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 1096 Khatauni No. 1403 Khasra No. 100//5/1 (2-16) situated in village Ra7a, as per jamabandi for the year 2013-14. The said relief has been sought by the plain7ffs on account of the fact that they are owners of the said land as per jamabandi Ex.P9 and civil court decree dated 06.05.1995. Same has been illegally possessed by the defendants which is evident from demarca7on report dated 28.02.2017. 15. In order to claim relief in the present case, it was incumbent upon the plain7ffs to prove their 7tle over the suit land and illegal possession of the defendant over the suit land. From perusal of the jamabandi Ex.P9 as well as copy of judgment passed in civil suit No.728 of 1995 Mark-PB, it is evident that the suit land is owned by the plain7ffs. Filing of the suit No.728 of 1995 is even not disputed by the defendant. The said suit was filed by Gurbachan Singh, defendant of this case alongwith his brothers, against predecessors-in- interest of plain7ffs, Chitan Kaur (mother), Smt. Harbans Kaur and Smt. Malkiyat Kaur (sisters). It is specifically men7oned in the head note of the plaint of that suit land that khasra No.82//16 (8-0) and 100//5 min (2-16) was given to predecessor/father of the plain7ffs, while defendant Gurbachan Singh was given land of khasra No.82//15 & 25. Through the said judgment and decree, the defendant and plain7ffs predecessor, had mutually par77oned their joint land. Admi?edly, the defendant has never challenged the proceedings of Civil Suit No.728 of 1995 7ll date or the decree passed in YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3265-2025 (O&M) [3] the said suit. Thus, the said judgment and decree has a?ained finality. From the jamabandi Ex. p9 as well as judgment-decree Mark-PB, it is readily proved on the case file that suit land is owned by the plain7ffs. 16. At this juncture, learned counsel for the defendant vehemently argued that he has disputed the passing of the said decree. The said par77on was not proper as there is no evidence as to amenity like passage, watercourse, irriga7on facility etc. The par77on was arbitrary as it has provided for unreasonable alloca7on of land to co-sharer. He also argued that land comprised in Khasra No.82//50 is under his possession and he has been using it as passage. 17. However, said conten7on raised by learned counsel for the defendant are not tenable. Civil suit No.169-C of 2017 is evidently filed for mere injunc7on as to existence of a passage through land of khasra No.82//16. In the said suit also, the defendant alleged that decree dated 06.05.1995 was void as to land of khasra No.82//16 (8-0) only. The defendant has alleged that he has been cul7va7ng land comprising in khasra no.82//15 (8-0), 16 (8-0), 25(8-0) and 100//5/1 as well. However, he has not challenged the decree dated 06.05.1995 in the said suit, In fact, the said decree has been acted upon and has been accepted to be correct by the defendant himself. The said fact is evident from the perusal of jamabandi whereby defendant himself has availed loan of Rs.42,500/. from PLDB Ra7a on 23.08.1995, on the basis of deed No.989 dated 22.08.1995, regarding land of khasra No.82//15 & 25. Aforesaid entry in the jamabandi pertaining to year 1988-89 Ex.D3 relied upon by defendant himself indicates that the land has been par77oned and is no longer joint. Even otherwise, the defendant has conceded in his cross- examina7on that land comprised in Khasra No.100//5/1 is owned by the plain7ffs. The admission is the best piece of evidence and the facts admi?ed need not be proved. Thus, 7tle of the plain7ffs over the suit land is well- proved. 18. The next ques7on for considera7on before the court is whether defendant is in illegal possession over the suit land or not. 19. To prove the said fact, plain7ffs have placed reliance on demarca7on report dated 28.02.2017 which is proved in the evidence of PW1. Even otherwise, the defendant has admi?ed that he is in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 100//5/1 (2-16). As discussed above, 7tle of the plain7ffs over the said land is well-proved from the jamabandi Ex.P9, decree dated 06.05.1995 and from the admission made by the defendant. Thus, the plain7ffs are certainly en7tled to claim possession of the said land on the basis of 7tle and are en7tled to the decree for possession of the suit land and defendant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the same to YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3265-2025 (O&M) [4] plain7ffs within two months of the passing of the decree in present appeal. Hence, no infirmity or illegality is found in the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2022, passed by the learned trial Court so as to interfere with the same in appeal.” 6. A perusal of the aforesaid findings leaves no manner of doubt that the plain7ffs have successfully established both the essen7al ingredients of a suit for possession based on 7tle, namely, (i) their ownership over the suit property, and (ii) unauthorized possession of the defendant. 7. The ownership of the plain7ffs stands conclusively established from the decree dated 06.05.1995 passed in Civil Suit No.728 of 1995. Significantly, the appellant-defendant himself was a party to the said proceedings along with his brothers. Under the said decree, the suit land fell to the share of the plain7ffs' predecessor-in-interest, whereas separate khasra numbers were allo?ed to the appellant and his brothers. Admi?edly, the said decree has never been challenged before any competent forum and has, therefore, a?ained finality. Once the decree has become final and binding upon the par7es, the appellant cannot be permi?ed to indirectly ques7on its correctness or seek to reopen the par77on effected thereunder while defending the present suit for possession. Such a collateral challenge is wholly impermissible in law. 8. The 7tle flowing from the decree is further corroborated by the revenue record, par7cularly the jamabandi for the year 2013-14, wherein the plain7ffs are recorded as owners of the suit land. The First Appellate Court has also rightly no7ced that the appellant himself acted upon the decree by obtaining a loan from the Primary Land Development Bank on the strength of the land allo?ed to his share under the very same par77on. Such conduct clearly demonstrates his acceptance of the decree. Having YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3265-2025 (O&M) [5] accepted its benefits, the appellant cannot now be permi?ed to dispute its validity or contend that the par77on was defec7ve. 9. Apart from the documentary evidence, there is also a clear admission made by the appellant during his cross-examina7on that the land comprised in Khasra No.100//5/1 belongs to the plain7ffs. It is a se?led principle that an admission cons7tutes the best evidence against the maker and dispenses with the necessity of further proof unless sa7sfactorily explained. The appellant has failed to furnish any explana7on for the said admission. 10. Equally untenable is the submission that the decree dated 06.05.1995 did not provide any passage to the appellant's land. The said plea has been thoroughly examined by the First Appellate Court. It has rightly been observed that if the appellant had any grievance regarding the manner of par77on or the absence of a passage, the appropriate remedy was to challenge the decree itself. Having allowed the decree to a?ain finality for nearly three decades, the appellant cannot resist the plain7ffs' claim for possession by raising such an objec7on in collateral proceedings. The alleged absence of a passage does not confer any legal right upon the appellant to con7nue in possession of the plain7ffs' land. 11. The finding regarding unauthorized possession is equally supported by cogent evidence. The demarca7on report dated 28.02.2017 establishes encroachment by the appellant over the suit land. More importantly, the appellant himself admi?ed that he is in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.100//5/1. Once the plain7ffs' 7tle stood proved, such possession, in the absence of any lawful authority, could only be treated as unauthorized, thereby en7tling the plain7ffs to recover possession. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3265-2025 (O&M) [6] 12. It is well se?led that in exercise of jurisdic7on under Sec7on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, interference is warranted only when the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from perversity, are based on no evidence, or involve a substan7al ques7on of law. Concurrent findings of fact, arrived at aAer proper apprecia7on of evidence, cannot be disturbed merely because another view is possible. 13. In the present case, both the Courts below have concurrently recorded findings on apprecia7on of the oral and documentary evidence that the plain7ffs are owners of the suit property and that the appellant is in unauthorized possession thereof. Learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to point out any perversity, misreading of evidence, or erroneous applica7on of law in the impugned judgments. 14. The plea regarding non-providing of passage neither undermines the plain7ffs' 7tle nor gives rise to any substan7al ques7on of law requiring considera7on in this second appeal. The en7re endeavour of the appellant is only to seek a re-apprecia7on of evidence, which is beyond the scope of Sec7on 100 CPC. 15. Consequently, no substan7al ques7on of law arises for considera7on. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 02.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document