RSA-569-2025 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-569-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.04.2026 Mukesh @ Mukesh Chauhan ...Appellant Versus Lalit Mohan and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been ûled by the appellant3defendant No.1 assailing the judgment & decree dated 18.12.2024 passed by the learned Addi:onal District Judge, Gurugram, whereby the appeal preferred by the plain:û was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2019 passed by the learned trial Court were set aside, the suit of the plain:û was decreed and the counter-claim ûled by defendant No.1 was dismissed. 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudica:on of the present appeal are that the plain:û ins:tuted a suit for declara:on to the eûect that he is owner of the suit property on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 21.06.2012, along with consequen:al relief of possession and permanent injunc:on. The plain:û asserted that defendant No.3, being the original owner, had ûrst entered into an agreement to sell dated 14.03.2006 and thereaAer executed a registered sale deed in his favour, pursuant to which muta:on was also sanc:oned. 3. The claim was contested by defendant No.1, who set up a rival :tle on the basis of certain agreements to sell, GPA and Will allegedly executed in favour of defendant No.2 and thereaAer in his favour. It was YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.22 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-569-2025 (O&M) [2] further pleaded that defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit property and had raised construc:on thereupon. A counter-claim was also ûled seeking declara:on of ownership and cancella:on of the sale deed in favour of the plain:û. 4. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plain:û while gran:ng protec:on to defendant No.1, essen:ally on the ground that the plain:û had failed to establish possession and that the transac:on in his favour appeared doubEul. 5. However, in appeal, the learned Addi:onal District Judge, upon re-apprecia:on of the en:re evidence, reversed the ûndings of the trial Court and held that the plain:û had duly proved the registered sale deed, which conferred valid :tle upon him, whereas the documents relied upon by defendant No.1 did not create any right, :tle or interest in the suit property. 6. Assailing the aforesaid reversal, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the ûrst appellate Court has erred in upseGng the well-reasoned ûndings of the trial Court and has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, par:cularly with regard to possession of the appellant and the earlier transac:on set up by him. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the record, this Court ûnds that the scope of interference in a second appeal under Sec:on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to substan:al ques:ons of law. Findings of fact recorded by the ûrst appellate Court, which is the ûnal Court of facts, cannot be interfered with unless such ûndings are shown to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence. 8. In the present case, the ûrst appellate Court has returned a categorical ûnding that the plain:û is the owner of the suit property on the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.22 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-569-2025 (O&M) [3] basis of a duly executed and registered sale deed dated 21.06.2012. The execu:on and registra:on of the said sale deed were proved by examining the aJes:ng witness as well as the oûcial from the oûce of the Sub- Registrar, and no credible challenge to its validity was established. 9. On the other hand, the claim of defendant No.1 is founded upon agreements to sell, GPA and Will. It is a seJled proposi:on of law that such documents do not convey :tle in immovable property. The ûrst appellate Court has also recorded speciûc ûndings that the documents relied upon by the appellant suûer from material discrepancies, including inconsistency in descrip:on of property, absence of proper aJesta:on and doubEul execu:on. These ûndings are based on apprecia:on of evidence and cannot be termed as perverse. 10. Further, the counter-claim ûled by defendant No.1 seeking declara:on of ownership on the basis of an agreement to sell was rightly dismissed, as no ownership rights can be claimed on the strength of such documents in the absence of a registered conveyance. It is also signiûcant that neither defendant No.1 nor his predecessor ever sought speciûc performance of the alleged agreements, which further weakens the claim set up by the appellant. 11. The trial Court, despite no:cing the superior :tle of the plain:û, declined relief on the ground that the plain:û was not in possession and that the transac:on appeared suspicious. The ûrst appellate Court has rightly corrected this approach by holding that once :tle is established, the plain:û is en:tled to seek possession from a person in unauthorized occupa:on. The ûndings of the appellate Court, thus, are in consonance with seJled principles of law. 12. No substan:al ques:on of law arises for considera:on in the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.22 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-569-2025 (O&M) [4] present appeal. The en:re dispute pertains to apprecia:on of evidence and compara:ve evalua:on of rival claims of :tle, which has been duly undertaken by the ûrst appellate Court. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment warran:ng interference by this Court. 13. Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 18.12.2024 passed by the learned Addi:onal District Judge, Gurugram are aûrmed. There shall be no order as to costs. 21.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.22 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document