[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Singh And Ors vs Birmati And Ors on 14 January, 2026
RSA-2651-2022 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2651-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.01.2026
Hari Singh and another ...Appellants
Versus
Birma( and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Pra(ksha Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Trial Court record has since been received. Applica(on bearing
CM-130-C-2026 has been moved by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27
CPC seeking permission to lead addi(onal evidence. Learned counsel for
the par(es have been heard on the appeal as well as on the said
applica(on.
Background of the Case
2. Defendants No.3 and 4 of the suit are before this Court in the
present appeal assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts
below. The suit for a decree of permanent injunc(on filed by the plain(ffs-
respondents No.1 to 4, namely Smt. Birma( and others, was partly decreed
by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.2016. The
appeal preferred by defendants No.3 and 4 was dismissed by the learned
First Appellate Court on 18.02.2022, thereby affirming the findings of the
trial Court.
3. The plain(ffs pleaded that they were owners in possession of
land measuring 38 kanal 8 marla, as detailed in the head-note of the plaint.
It was asserted that their predecessors had been cul(va(ng the land
1 of 5
RSA-2651-2022 (O&M) [2]
without payment of rent or batai. According to the plain(ffs, the revenue
entries showing cul(va(on of defendants over 17 kanal 12 marla of land
were factually incorrect. On their applica(on, the cul(va(on entries were
corrected by the revenue authori(es a?er spot inspec(on. It was further
pleaded that the defendants had no right or interest in the suit property
and were threatening to dispossess the plain(ffs forcibly, which
constrained them to file the present suit for permanent injunc(on.
4. The suit was contested by the defendants by asser(ng that
defendant No.1 - Jaidev Inder Singh had executed an agreement to sell
dated 04.08.2011 in favour of defendant No.4 - Hari Singh, and that
possession of the suit property had been delivered pursuant thereto. It was
pleaded that defendants were in actual and physical possession of the
en(re suit land and that correc(on of khasra girdawari entries in favour of
the plain(ffs was illegal. Dismissal of the suit was sought.
Findings of the Courts Below
5. Upon framing of issues and appraisal of evidence, the learned
trial Court recorded a finding that defendant No.1 was a co-sharer in the
suit land. However, it was further found that the plain(ffs were in actual
cul(va(ng possession of 17 kanal 12 marla of land. Consequently, the
defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the
plain(ffs over the specifically described killa numbers, except in due course
of law. The said findings were affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court,
which independently re-appreciated the evidence and found no infirmity in
the conclusions drawn by the trial Court.
Submissions in Appeal and Addi onal Evidence Applica on
6. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned Senior Counsel for
the appellants contends that Munshi son of Harphool, father of appellant
2 of 5
RSA-2651-2022 (O&M) [3]
Hari Singh, was recorded to be in possession of the en(re suit land
measuring 38 kanal 8 marla in the jamabandi for the years 1974-75 and
1984-85. To substan(ate this plea, the appellants seek to place on record
cer(fied copies of the said jamabandis by way of addi(onal evidence.
Prayer is also made to take on record applica(ons and reports rela(ng to
demarca(on allegedly conducted on the orders of the Tehsildar, Madlauda.
Considera on and Analysis
7. This Court finds no merit either in the appeal or in the
applica(on filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
8. It is not in dispute that defendant No.1 - Jaidev Inder Singh is a
co-sharer in the suit property. However, the suit in ques(on is one for
permanent injunc(on, where the determina(ve factor is actual possession
on the date of ins(tu(on of the suit, and not (tle alone.
9. Though jamabandis for the years 1974-75 and 1984-85 record
possession of Munshi, the Courts below have rightly relied upon
subsequent records, which reflect the plain(ffs to be in cul(va(ng
possession of 17 kanal 12 marla of land. The correc(on of khasra girdawari
entries in favour of the plain(ffs was proved by documentary evidence,
including rapat Roznamcha Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5, prepared a?er spot
inspec(on by the revenue authori(es. These correc(ons were never set
aside by any competent authority.
10. Significantly, appellant Hari Singh (defendant No.4) claims
possession on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 04.08.2011 allegedly
executed by defendant No.1. The Courts below have concurrently found
that no sale deed was ever executed pursuant to the said agreement, nor
was any suit for specific performance filed. It is seHled law that an
agreement to sell does not confer any right, (tle or interest in immovable
3 of 5
RSA-2651-2022 (O&M) [4]
property, nor does it by itself confer lawful possession. The appellants,
therefore, failed to establish any independent or legally enforceable right
to remain in possession.
Applica on under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
11. The scope of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is well circumscribed.
Addi(onal evidence at the appellate stage can be permiHed only when:
a) The trial Court has wrongly refused to admit evidence; or
b) The evidence was not within the knowledge of the party or could not
be produced despite due diligence; or
c) The appellate Court requires such evidence to pronounce judgment.
12. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellants fairly
concedes that the proposed demarca(on applica(ons and reports were
never produced before the trial Court and that Annexure A-6 was procured
subsequent to the decisions of the Courts below. Such evidence cannot be
permiHed to fill up lacunae or to re-open factual findings already recorded
a?er full trial.
13. As regards jamabandis of the years 1974-75 and 1984-85, even
otherwise, they have liHle relevance for determining possession at the (me
of filing of the suit, par(cularly when subsequent records relied upon by the
Courts below show possession of the plain(ffs. Therefore, none of the
statutory requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are sa(sfied.
14. The applica(on for addi(onal evidence is thus wholly
misconceived and deserves dismissal.
Conclusion
15. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below
are based on proper apprecia(on of oral and documentary evidence. No
perversity, illegality or misreading of evidence has been demonstrated so as
4 of 5
RSA-2651-2022 (O&M) [5]
to warrant interference by this Court.
16. Consequently, the applica(on under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC as
well as the present appeal are dismissed.
14.01.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
5 of 5
