Second appeal against concurrent findings decreeing permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The High Court held the finding of possession was a finding of fact, no exception warranting interference was made out, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
RSA No.502 of 1992 Reserved on: 02.05.2024 Pronounced on: 18.05.2024
ROSHAN LAL AND OTHERS
TEK CHAND SEHREWAT
. . . . APPELLANTS Vs. . . . . RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Chander Pal Tiwana, Ms. Swati Tiwana, Advocates, for Mr. R.S. Chahar, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the respondents.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present Regular Second Appeal is against the concurrent finding of the Courts below, in as much as, suit filed by the plaintiff - Tek Chand Sehrawat (respondent herein) for decree of permanent injunction regarding property in dispute was decreed by the trial court; and the appeal filed by the defendants-Roshan Lal etc. (appellants herein) was dismissed by the first Appellate Court.
3.1 According to the plaintiff, he is owner in possession of the suit property marked by letters ABCD in the attached site plan and as detailed and described in head note of the plaint. Alleging interference in his
VIVEK PAHWA 2024.05.18 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-502-1992
2024: PHHC: 070385
possession on the part of defendants, without having any right to do so, plaintiff prayed for decree of permanent injunction so as to restrain them from doing so.
3.2 Contesting defendants denied any concern of the plaintiff with the suit property. According to them, they are owner in possession thereof and that they had constructed hutments thereon and had put their dung cakes and fire woods etc. therein. They further pleaded that being in possession for the last 50-60 years, they had become owner by way of adverse
possession. They prayed for dismissal of the suit.
led by the parties, came to the conclusion that it is the plaintiff, who was in possession of the property in dispute, though he had not been able to prove his title. It was further found that defendants had failed to prove their possession over the suit property. As such, the issues were decided in favour
VIVEK PAHWA 2024.05.18 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 2 of 5
RSA-502-1992
2024: PHHC: 070385
of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The findings on the other issues No.3 to 5 went against the defendants. Consequent to these findings, suit was decreed on 27.01.1988.
5.2 The aforesaid findings, as recorded by the trial Court, have been upheld by the First Appellate Court of ld. Additional District Judge, Narnaul. Vide judgment dated 24.08.1991, the First Appellate Court, dismissed the appeal.
appraised the record carefully.
VIVEK PAHWA 2024.05.18 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 3 of 5
RSA-502-1992
2024: PHHC: 070385
relied upon not only his own testimony by appearing in the witness box as PW2, his statement has been supported further by as many as 12 others witnesses. Of course, defendants also examined five witnesses to prove their possession and also placed on record some revenue documents to contend that they were the owner in possession, but the evidence produced by the defendants is not at all convincing.
“It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law in force at the relevant time. The conditions mentioned in the Section must be strictly fulfilled before a second appeal can be maintained and no court has the power to add to or enlarge those
VIVEK PAHWA 2024.05.18 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 4 of 5
RSA-502-1992
2024: PHHC: 070385
grounds. The second appeal cannot be decided on merely equitable grounds. The concurrent findings of facts howsoever erroneous cannot be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of the powers under this Section. The substantial question of law has to be distinguished from a substantial question of fact.”
the above said exceptions, so as to call for any interference.
Dismissed.
(DEEPAK GUPTA) 18.05.2024 JUDGE ����� 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes 2. Whether reportable? No
VIVEK PAHWA 2024.05.18 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property so as to sustain a decree of permanent injunction.
Whether the defendants had acquired ownership by adverse possession after 50-60 years of possession.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitribai Sopan GujarRelied on¶11
1999 (3) SCC 722 · Who else cites this
P. Chandrasekharan and Others vs S. Kanakarajan & OthersRelied on¶12
2007(3) RCR(Civil) 543
Roshan Lal and Others
Tek Chand Sehrewat
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
