Dismissed¶31

Baljit Singh v. Ramesh Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Dec 2025RSA/3842/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Baljit Singh v. Ramesh Singh & Ors., RSA No. 3842 of 2025 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana HC (Deepak Gupta, J.), 12.12.2025 — second appeal against concurrent dismissal of suit for permanent injunction alleging encroachment on public passage in Khasra No. 169; burden of proof under Section 101 Evidence Act, Section 39 Specific Relief Act, scope of interference under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact not disturbed absent perversity; appeal dismissed; delay of 121 days in re-filing condoned.

What did the court decide?

The findings of both courts below are pure findings of fact arising from appreciation of evidence on record; no misreading or misinterpretation of evidence was shown, nor did the courts ignore any material evidence. ¶10

Baljit Singh Vs Ramesh Singh and Others — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Regular Second Appeal raises any substantial question of law warranting interference, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

Interference in second appeal is permissible only where a substantial question of law arises, and the appellant failed to demonstrate any such question.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

¶10

Key takeaways

Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless they are perverse or based on no evidence; here the findings were fully supported by material on record and could not be reopened merely because a different inference was sought.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Chandigarh), Deepak Gupta, J.: RSA No. 3842 of 2025 (O&M), Baljit Singh v. Ramesh Singh & Ors., decided 12.12.2025 — Regular Second Appeal dismissed. The plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction over an alleged encroachment on a public passage forming part of Khasra No. 169 (Nagar Panchayat land) at Kot Ise Khan was dismissed by the trial Court on 16.03.2023, the plaintiff having failed to prove the street's width per revenue records or any encroachment by the defendants; demarcation reports dated 20.01.2010 (Ex.PW7/B) and 02.12.2016 (Ex.PW9/A) recorded no encroachment by them, and the plaintiff admitted defendants' site plan Ex.D1 correctly depicted the spot. The First Appellate Court concurred on 24.02.2025. Holding that the findings below were pure findings of fact, that no misreading or misinterpretation of evidence was shown, and that no substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC was demonstrated, the High Court declined to disturb the concurrent findings and dismissed the appeal. Delay of 121 days in re-filing was separately condoned (CM No. 14086-C of 2025). Marked speaking/reasoned: Yes; reportable: No.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA No. 3842 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.12.2025

Baljit Singh

. . . . Appellant

Vs.

Ramesh Singh & Ors.

. . . . Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶9

****

¶10

Present:Mr. Impinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate For the appellant. (through VC) ****

¶11

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶12

CM No. 14086-C of 2025

¶13

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 121 days in re-filing the accompanied RSA.

¶14

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 121 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned.

¶15

RSA No. 3842 of 2025

¶16

The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Baljit Singh, the plaintiff in the suit, challenging the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. His suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction with respect to an alleged encroachment upon a public passage was dismissed by the trial Court on 16.03.2023, and the appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 24.02.2025.

¶17

According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of a house situated in Guru Nanak Nagar, Kot Ise Khan. Adjacent to his house lies a passage forming part of Khasra No. 169, measuring 6 kanal 6 marla. He alleged that defendants No. 3 to 5 had encroached upon a portion of this passage, which he attempted to identity in the site plan attached with the plaint. He further

¶18

JITEN SHARMA 2025.12.12 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RSA No. 3842 of 2025

¶20

stated that though demarcations had been conducted multiple times by the revenue authorities, the encroachment was not removed.

¶21

The defendants, however, took the stand that the site plan relied upon by the plaintiff did not depict the actual position existing at the spot. They maintained that the street was in fact 16½ feet wide and was available for use. They further contended that if any encroachment existed, it was on the southern side of the street, where two other individuals, namely Narinderpal Singh and Harjitpal Singh, had raised constructions. According to the defendants, the plaintiff ought to have pursued action against these individuals rather than the present defendants.

¶22

After examining the pleadings and evidence, the trial Court recorded that the passage in question indisputably falls within Khasra No. 169 and belongs to the Nagar Panchayat, Kot Ise Khan. The plaintiff alleged encroachment by defendants No. 1 to 7 upon portions marked in red and blue in site plan Ex.P1. However, on scrutinizing the evidence, the Court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove the exact width of the street as per the revenue record or the extent to which it may have been encroached upon by the defendants. The demarcation reports dated 20.01.2010 (Ex.PW7/B) and 02.12.2016 (Ex.PW9/A), both relied upon by the plaintiff, did not record any encroachment by the defendants. The Court also noted that the plaintiff himself admitted during cross-examination that the defendants’ site plan Ex.D1 correctly depicted the situation at the spot. He further admitted that the defendants had constructed their houses about 30 years earlier, which cast serious doubt upon his claim of recent encroachment.

¶23

Upon this analysis, the trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to discharge the initial burden of proof under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, particularly when he could not establish any breach of obligation by the defendants as required under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit was accordingly dismissed.

¶24

The First Appellate Court carefully reappraised the evidence and concurred with the findings of the trial Court. It observed that the plaintiff had failed to prove any specific encroachment despite alleging that the

¶25

JITEN SHARMA 2025.12.12 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

RSA No. 3842 of 2025

¶28

defendants had raised a platform in front of their houses. Neither the site plan relied upon by the plaintiff nor the demarcation reports supported this allegation. The Appellate Court held that as the burden lay squarely on the plaintiff to prove the encroachment, and he had failed to do so, and so, the appeal deserved dismissal.

¶29

In the present second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Courts below had erred in appreciating the demarcation reports and had wrongly believed the evidence produced by the defendants. 10. However, this Court finds that the findings of both the Courts below are pure findings of fact arising from appreciation of evidence on record. No misreading or misinterpretation of evidence has been shown, nor is there any indication that the Courts ignored any material evidence.

¶30

Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, interference in second appeal is permissible only where a substantial question of law arises. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate any such question. It is well settled that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. In the present case, the findings are fully supported by material on record and cannot be reopened merely because a different inference is sought to be drawn.

¶31

In the absence of any merit, the Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 12.12.2025 JUDGE Jiten Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶33

JITEN SHARMA 2025.12.12 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Baljit Singh v. Ramesh Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljit Singh v. Ramesh Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jarnail Singh Vs Gurdip Singh

Surja Ram Vs Prithvi Raj

Nachiya Devi and Ors. Vs Amarnath and Ors.

Moksh Lata Vs Manohar Lal Sood and Another

State Bank of India Vs Harnand

Prem Chand and Ors. Vs Mool Chand