IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 108 CM-4269-C-2026 in/and RSA-4451-2025 Date of Decision.: 17.04.2026 Gursimranjit Singh @ Shammi …..Appellant Vs. Lakhvir Singh and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Raminder Singh Joon, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. (through VC). **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-4269-C-2026: This is an applica%on for restora%on of the main case i.e. RSA- 4451-2025, which was dismissed in default for want of prosecu%on on 10.03.2026. For the reasons men%oned in the applica%on, supported by affidavit of Sh. Raminder Singh Joon, Advocate for the appellant, the applica%on is allowed. Order dated 10.03.2026 is recalled. Main case i.e. RSA-4451-2025 is restored. It be registered at its original number. Main case is taken up today itself for actual hearing. Main case.: The plain%ff has preferred the present Regular Second Appeal under Sec%on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment & decree dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Addi%onal District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali), whereby the appeal filed by defendant No.2 was allowed; the judgment & decree of the learned trial Court dated 04.07.2018 were set aside, and the suit of the plain%ff was dismissed. 2. The plain%ff ins%tuted a suit seeking decree of permanent NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4269-C-2026 in/and RSA-4451-2025 injunc%on to restrain the defendants from interfering in his possession over a residen%al house situated within the lal lakir/red line area of village Kalewal, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). A further relief of declara%on was sought to the effect that the earlier judgment & decree dated 27.08.2013, passed in a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 17.05.2012, were illegal, null and void and not binding upon his rights. 3. The case set up by the plain%ff was that the property originally belonged to his grandfather Sital Singh, who out of love and affec%on had given possession thereof to him. It was pleaded that a@er the death of Sital Singh, the plain%ff con%nued in possession and had electricity connec%on and ra%on card at the said premises. 4. Defendant No.2 contested the suit and pleaded that defendant No.1 was owner in possession of the property and had entered into an agreement to sell dated 17.05.2012 in his favour. Upon failure of defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed, a suit for specific performance had been filed and decreed on 27.08.2013, wherea@er sale deed was executed through Court and execu%on proceedings were ini%ated. 5. Defendant N: 1 did not contest the suit and was proceeded ex- parte. 6. A@er framing issues and taking evidence led by the par%es, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. However, in appeal, the learned First Appellate Court reversed the said findings and dismissed the suit holding that the plain%ff had failed to prove either ownership or possession. 7. Assailing the above reversal, Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing a well-reasoned decree of the trial Court. It is argued that possession of the plain%ff stood established from electricity documents, ra%on card, Local Commissioner’s report and the admission made by defendant No.2 in cross-examina%on that he never asked the plain%ff to hand over possession. It is further Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4269-C-2026 in/and RSA-4451-2025 submiFed that the decree dated 27.08.2013 having been obtained behind the back of the plain%ff was rightly declared ineffec%ve by the trial Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. 9. At the outset, it deserves no%ce that the present appeal is a second appeal under Sec%on 100 CPC and interference is permissible only when a substan%al ques%on of law arises. Re-apprecia%on of pure findings of fact is not the scope of jurisdic%on unless such findings are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. 10. The core issue in the suit was whether the plain%ff had proved a beFer right en%tling him to injunc%on and declara%on. 11. The plain%ff pleaded that the property belonged to his grandfather Sital Singh and had been given to him. However, admiFedly no %tle deed, muta%on, revenue entry, family seFlement, par%%on deed or any documentary evidence was produced to show ownership of Sital Singh or transfer in favour of the plain%ff. Even in cross-examina%on, the plain%ff admiFed that he possessed no document showing that the property had been given to him. Thus, the founda%onal plea of ownership remained wholly unsubstan%ated. 12. The plain%ff also failed to establish seFled and exclusive possession. The Local Commissioner’s report merely no%ced the physical condi%on of the premises. It did not conclusively establish occupa%on by the plain%ff. On the contrary, the premises were found without normal residen%al facili%es. The plain%ff himself admiFed absence of water arrangement, latrine, household ar%cles and separate kitchen. Such admissions materially weaken the plea of actual residence or seFled possession. Electricity bills and ra%on card, by themselves, are not documents of %tle and in the facts of the present case were rightly held insufficient to connect the plain%ff with lawful possession over the disputed structure. Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4269-C-2026 in/and RSA-4451-2025 13. The learned trial Court mainly relied upon an isolated statement of defendant No.2 that he had never asked the plain%ff to hand over possession. The First Appellate Court correctly held that such stray statement, read out of context, could not amount to clear admission of possession. Evidence must be appreciated as a whole and not by li@ing one sentence detached from the overall tes%mony. 14. The First Appellate Court, being the final Court on facts, reassessed the evidence and recorded a plausible and reasoned conclusion. No perversity has been pointed out. 15. Once the plain%ff failed to establish his own legal right, %tle or possession, he could not seek declara%on that the earlier decree between other par%es was void as against him merely on bald allega%ons of fraud. Fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. No such cogent evidence was led. 16. The findings returned by the First Appellate Court are findings of fact based on apprecia%on of oral and documentary evidence. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate that any material evidence was ignored, inadmissible evidence relied upon, or seFled principles of law violated so as to give rise to a substan%al ques%on of law. 17. Consequently, no substan%al ques%on of law arises for considera%on in the present appeal. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Addi%onal District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) are affirmed. 18. Pending miscellaneous applica%ons, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 17, 2026 Nee%ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document