RSA-910-2026 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-910-2026 (O&M) Surja ...Appellant Versus Baljeet and others ...Respondents Reserved on: 13.07.2026 Pronounced on: 14.07.2026 Pronounced fully/opera2ve part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. (Legal Aid Counsel) **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The appellant-plain/ff has filed the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for permanent injunc/on has been dismissed. 2. The plain/ff ins/tuted the suit pleading that he and before him his ancestors had remained in possession of the suit land, forming part of shamlat property, for nearly five to six decades and had established a Pajawa thereon for earning their livelihood. Alleging interference by defendants N:1 to 4, a decree of permanent injunc/on was sought restraining them from interfering in his possession or forcibly dispossessing him. 3. The defendants N: 1 to 4 disputed the very possession of the plain/ff, whereas Gram Panchayat – defendant N: 5 asserted its ownership over the land and pleaded that neither side possessed any enforceable right. 4. Upon apprecia/on of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 16.01.2023. The first appellate YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.14 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-910-2026 (O&M) [2] Court, being the final Court on facts, independently re-appreciated the en/re evidence and affirmed the findings vide its judgment dated 10.09.2025. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having examined the judgments passed by both the Courts below, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal does not give rise to any substan/al ques/on of law warran/ng interference under Sec/on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. The en/re case of the appellant rests upon his alleged long and se@led possession over a por/on of shamlat land. The burden to establish such possession squarely rested upon him. The Courts below have concurrently found that except for his own oral asser/ons and those of suppor/ng witnesses, there is no reliable documentary evidence establishing his possession over the specific parcel of land in dispute. Even the revenue record relied upon by the plain/ff neither stood duly proved in accordance with law nor recorded his possession over the suit property. Likewise, the proceedings under Sec/ons 107/151 Cr.P.C. merely disclose that some apprehension of breach of peace existed and cannot cons/tute proof of lawful or se@led possession over immovable property. 7. More importantly, the plain/ff failed to iden/fy the subject ma@er of the suit with the certainty required for grant of a decree of injunc/on. No site plan indica/ng the exact por/on claimed by him was placed on record. During cross-examina/on, the plain/ff as well as his witnesses admi@ed their inability to state the measurements or boundaries of the por/on allegedly under his occupa/on. In a suit seeking protec/on of possession over immovable property, the iden/ty of the property sought to be protected is founda/onal. Unless the Court is able to ascertain with certainty the exact property over which injunc/on is sought, no executable YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.14 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-910-2026 (O&M) [3] decree can be granted. The concurrent finding that the suit property itself remained insufficiently iden/fied is, therefore, fully jus/fied. 8. The eviden/ary value of the photographs produced by the plain/ff has also been rightly discarded. Apart from not being proved in accordance with law, there is no material connec/ng those photographs with the suit property. Rather, the evidence no/ced by the Courts below creates serious doubt regarding their rela/on to the disputed land. Such evidence could not have displaced the burden res/ng upon the plain/ff. 9. Besides above, the plain/ff himself admi@ed during cross- examina/on that the alleged Pajawa was no longer func/oning at the site. This admission substan/ally weakens the very founda/on of the case projected in the plaint that he con/nued to remain in se@led possession by opera/ng the said Pajawa. The Courts below were, therefore, jus/fied in concluding that the oral evidence did not inspire confidence. 10. The findings recorded by the Courts below also disclose that the land admi@edly forms part of the Gram Panchayat property. Whether the plain/ff or defendants N:1 to 4 are unauthorized occupants is not, however, the decisive issue in the present proceedings. The primary ques/on was whether the plain/ff succeeded in proving his own se@led possession over an iden/fiable por/on of the property so as to en/tle him to the equitable relief of injunc/on. The answer recorded concurrently by both the Courts is in the nega/ve. Once the plain/ff failed to discharge the ini/al burden cast upon him, the alleged weakness of the defence became wholly inconsequen/al, it being well se@led that a plain/ff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence. 11. It is equally well se@led that in exercise of jurisdic/on under Sec/on 100 CPC, this Court does not func/on as a third Court of facts. Concurrent findings of fact, based upon apprecia/on of evidence, cannot YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.14 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-910-2026 (O&M) [4] be reopened unless shown to be perverse, based upon no evidence or suffering from misapplica/on of se@led legal principles. Learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to demonstrate that the findings recorded by either of the Courts below suffer from any such infirmity. Mere possibility of another view on apprecia/on of evidence is not a ground to interfere in second appeal. 12. The findings recorded by the Courts below are founded upon apprecia/on of oral and documentary evidence, are neither perverse nor contrary to the record, and do not disclose any error of law much less a substan/al ques/on of law within the meaning of Sec/on 100 CPC. 13. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. Pending miscellaneous applica/on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 14.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 14.07.2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.14 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document