Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Jasmat vs Amir Singh & Ors on 22 January, 2026
Author: Amarinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Amarinder Singh Grewal
RSA-1903-1996
1996 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
203 RSA No.
No.1903 of 1996 (O&M)
Reserved on:16.01.2026
Pronounced on: 22.01.2026
Uploaded on:
on:23.01.2026
Jasmat (since deceased) through LRs ... Appellant
Versus
Amir Singh (sin
nce deceased) through LRs and oothers ... Respondentss
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Ms. Neha Rani, Advocate for
Ms. Sweta Beniwal, Advocate
for LRs of the appellant.
Mr. Tapan Kumar, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 to 3.
***
****
AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.
1. The present regular second appeal ppeal has been preferred by the appellant-plaintiff plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.1996 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court,, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-
respondents defendants was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 01.03.1996 passed by the learned trial t Court decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the appellant-plaintiff plaintiff was set aside.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being described in the manner in which they were before the learned Trial Court.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction asserting his actual physical possession over a triangular plot situated in village Indri, Indri, Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon, marked as ABC in the site plan and shown in red colour. It was pleaded that the suit 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 08:22:59 ::: RSA-1903-1996 1996 -2- property measured measure about 110 feet on the western side and 165 feet on the northern-eastern eastern side.
side The plaintiff claimed ed that the suit prop property was of ancestral nature and that he had been in continuous possession thereof for a considerable period and chhappar, khors, khors, fodder cutting machine were existing on the land and cattle were used to be tethered. It was further averred that the defenda defendants, nts, having no right, title or interest in the suit property, threatened to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff on 11.01.1993, 11.01.1993, giving rise to the cause of action for filing the suit. Hence, the present suit.
4. Upon notice, the defendants filed their written statement controverting the averments of the plaint. It was pleased that the plaintiff was neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property and that the same was the ancestral property of the defendants.
defendan It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is a resident of village Khanpur, Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon, and that he has only recently settled in village Indri. It was asserted that the plaintiff has not placed on record the correct site plan of the property in question. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was categorically denied. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff is not an original resident of village Indri and that the suit has been instituted merely to harass the de defendants.
fendants. It was alleged that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts, lacks locus standi,, and that the suit is false, frivolous, and not maintainable in law.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial rial Court framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?
2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 08:23:00 ::: RSA-1903-1996 1996 -3-
(iii) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?
(iv) Relief."
6. In order to prove their case, both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. The plaintiff appeared as PW PW-1 and examined PW--2, Nanwa Lambardar and PW-3, 3, Attar Singh, who supported the plea of long standing possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The plaintiff al also so relied upon the site plan and the report of the Local Commissioner. On the other hand, defendant No.1 appeared as DW-1 DW 1 and asserted ownership and possession of the defendants, however, except for his own statement, no independent witness from the villagee was examined in support of the defence version.
7. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, the learned trial rial Court held that though both parties failed to prove ownership over the suit property, the plaintiff succeeded in establishing hi hiss actual physical possession. Reliance was placed on the consistent testimonies of PW PW-1, 1, PW-2 PW and PW-3, 3, duly corroborated by the report of the Local Commissioner, which reflected the existence of chhappar,, fodder cutting machine and tethering of cattle at the spot. The learned trial Court also noticed the absence of any independent evidence on behalf of the defendants to rebut the plaintiff's possession. On these premises, the suit for permanent injunction was decreed, decreed vide judgment and decree dated 01.03.1996,, restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff except in due course of law.
8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court,, the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned 1st Appellate Court, Court which vide judgment dated 20.07.1996 allowed the appeal, reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on issues ssues No.1 and 2, and dismissed the suit of 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 08:23:00 ::: RSA-1903-1996 1996 -4- the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish either ownership orr possession over the suit property. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant appellant-plaintiff contended that the judgment of the learned 1st Appellate Court is contrary to law and evidence on record. It is submitted that the learned trial rial Court Court,, after due appreciation of the testimony of PW-1 PW 1 (the plaintiff himself), PW PW-2 2 Nanwa, Lambardar of the village, and PW-3 PW 3 Attar Singh, aged about 50 years, had rightly concluded that the plaintiff was in settled possession of the suit pr property.
operty. It is argued that the said witnesses were consistent and categorical regarding the possession of the plaintiff, and their testimony stood corroborated by the report of the Local Commissioner. It is further contended that the defendants, except for their own bald statement, failed to produce any independent or cogent evidence in support of their plea, and not a single person from the village came forward to support their stand. According to the appellant, this material aspect was completely d by the learned 1st Appellate Court while reversing the findings of the overlooked learned trial rial Court without demonstrating any perversity or illegality therein and thus, acted beyond the settled parameters of appellate jurisdiction jurisdiction. It was prayed judgmen and decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court be set that the judgment aside and the present appeal appeal of the appellant be allowed by restoring the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents respondents-defendants supported the judgment and decree dated 20.07.1996 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court and contended that the judgment and decree dated 01.03.1996 passed by the learned trial Court was rightly set aside. It was argued that the plaintiff failed to establish tablish his possession over the suit property by cogent and reliable evidence 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 08:23:00 ::: RSA-1903-1996 1996 -5- and that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court were unsustainable. It was further contended that the Local Commissioner exceeded the scope of his th learned 1st Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the reference and that the evidence on record while reversing the erroneous findings of the learned trial Court. It was lastly submitted that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal and the the same deserves dismissal.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the judgments passed by the learned Courts below along with the evidence on record. Upon such consideration, this Court finds that the learned 1st Appellate Court has reversed the findings of the learned trial Court on a correct appreciation of both facts and law.
law At the outset, it is evident that the learned trial rial Court had placed undue reliance on the site plan Ex.P Ex.P-1 1 and the report of the Local Commissioner mmissioner.. The site plan relied upon by the plaintiff was neither attested by the scribe nor supported by any official or revenue record. The learned 1st Appellate Court rightly noticed that such a site plan, in the absence of proper authentication, could not form the basis for recording a finding of possession. Similarly, the learned 1st Appellate Court correctly held that the Local Commissioner exceeded the scope of his jurisdiction jurisdiction.. The Local Commissioner was required only to report the physical features existing at the spot; however, he proceeded to record observations suggesting that the plaintiff's family members were keeping cattle on the plot, thereby virtually returning a finding on possession. It is a settled principle that a Local Commissi Commissioner oner is not competent to determine possession or title, and his report cannot substitute substantive evidence. The learned trial rial Court failed to appreciate this legal limitation, limitation whereas the learned 1st Appellate Court rightly corrected the said error error.
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 08:23:00 :::
RSA-1903-1996
1996 -6-
12. Th learned 1st Appellate Court further noticed a serious infirmity in The the plaintiff's case arising from the non-production production of the best available documentary evidence.
evidence. Despite the admitted existence of Shajra Khasra Paimash,, no effort was made by the plaintiff to summon or produce the same. PW-2 2 Nanwa, Lambardar, categorically admitted that such revenue record existed, yet the plaintiff withheld it without explanation. The settled law is that where the best evidence is withheld, withheld, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn.
aspect; whereas the learned 1st The learned trial Court completely overlooked this aspect Appellate Court rightly treated it as fatal to the plea of possession possession.
13. On the other hand, the defendants placed on record tthe he pedigree table Ex.D-3 3 for the year 1961-62, 1961 , which established that the plaintiff's father was Narain Singh and his grandfather was Chajju, and that the pedigree pertained to village Khanpur.
Khanpur. The plaintiff did not dispute these particulars. This evidence, evidence as rightly observed by the learned 1st Appellate Court Court,, clearly indicated that the plaintiff was not the original resident of village Indri, thereby materially weakening his claim of long-standing long standing possession over the suit property.
14. Coming to the oral evidence, the learned 1st Appellate Court subjected the testimony of PW-2 PW 2 Nanwa, Lambardar, and PW PW-3 3 Attar Singh to careful scrutiny, scrutiny which the learned trial Court failed to do do. PW-2 2 admitted that he had contested Panchayat elections against against defendant Amir Singh and was defeated by him, thereby establishing prior political hostility. PW PW-3 3 admitted that he was not on speaking terms with the defendant defendants for the last two years on account of the arrest of his son in a criminal case registered at the instance of the defendants.. These admissions unmistakably demonstrated that PW PW-2 2 and PW-3 PW were inimical witnesses, whose testimony required independent corroboration.
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 08:23:00 :::
RSA-1903-1996
1996 -7-
The learned trial Court overlooked these material admissions admissions,, whereas the learned 1st Appellate Court correctly discounted their evidentiary value value.
15. In this backdrop, the learned 1st Appellate Court rightly concluded that the finding of possession recorded by the learned trial Court was founded on interested oral testimony, an unauthenticated site plan, and a Local Commissioner's report beyond its permissible scope, without support from any reliable documentary or revenue record. The reversal of the judgment and decree of the learned trial t Court was, thus, based on proper re re-appreciation appreciation of evidence and correct application of settled principles of law.
16. It is well settled that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and that the weakness of the defence does not cure the deficiencies in the plaintiff's evidence. It is equally settled that learned 1st Appellate Court is duty-bound bound to reverse findings of the learned trial Court where the evidence has been mis-appreciated appreciated,, and such reversal, when supported by reasons, does not give rise to a substantial question of law.
17. However, in in view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others (2023) SCC Online SC 875, 875 questions of law are not required to be framed in secon second d appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.
7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 08:23:00 ::: RSA-1903-1996 1996 -8-
18. As an upshot of above, above, this Court ffinds inds no perversity, illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court.
Court Consequently, the instant regular second appeal is dismissed.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(AMARINDER AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL GREWAL) JUDGE January 22, 2026 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 8 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2026 08:23:00 :::