Kaushalya Bai v. Jeet Singh And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.120 of 2022 (O&M) Kaushalaya Bai (since deceased) through LRs ...Appellant Vs.

Jeet Singh and others

...Respondents

****

Reserved on: 22.01.2026

Pronounced on: 23.01.2026 Pronounced fully/opera7ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Ms. Rashi Verma, Advocate for Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the appellant.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present regular second appeal has been preferred by defendant No.3, assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Fazilka, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalalabad, decreeing the suit of the plain2ff, were affirmed.

2.

Briefly stated, the plain2ff ins2tuted a suit for declara2on and permanent injunc2on claiming himself to be owner in cul2va2ng possession of the suit land, challenging the revenue entries and the order dated 09.06.2008 passed by the Assistant Collector II Grade, whereby khasra Girdawari had been corrected in favour of defendant No.3. The plain2ff traced his possession through affidavits executed by Jagdish Singh (son of defendant No.3), correc2on of khasra Girdawari in the year 1993, long-standing possession reflected in successive revenue records, and eventual conferment of proprietary rights under

RSA-120-2022 (O&M) the Punjab Package Deal of Proper2es (Disposal) Act, 1976, culmina2ng in issuance of a conveyance deed in his favour. 3.

Defendant No.3 contested the suit by asser2ng her own cul2va2ng possession as gair maurusi and sought to jus2fy the later revenue entries in her favour.

4.

The Trial Court, a>er apprecia2ng the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit, holding that the plain2ff was in con2nuous cul2va2ng possession and that the impugned revenue entries and orders were illegal and unsustainable.

5.

The First Appellate Court, upon an exhaus2ve re-apprecia2on of the en2re record, affirmed the findings of the Trial Court. It no2ced the long history of li2ga2on ini2ated either by defendant No.3 or her close rela2ves on the same issue of possession, all of which had consistently failed before civil and revenue authori2es. It was specifically found that defendant No.3 never established her cul2va2ng possession at any point of 2me and that stray revenue entries obtained during pendency of disputes could not override the binding civil court findings and a valid conveyance deed.

6.

Learned counsel for the appellant, in the present second appeal, has reiterated the same conten2ons, which were raised before the Courts below, namely, that the appellant was in possession of the suit land and that the revenue authori2es had rightly corrected the khasra Girdawari in her favour. No new legal issue has been pointed out, nor has any perversity in apprecia2on of evidence been demonstrated.

7.

Having heard learned counsel and perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The findings recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court are pure findings of fact, based on a detailed apprecia2on of evidence and the long chain of prior li2ga2on between the par2es. The First Appellate Court has given co-

RSA-120-2022 (O&M) gent reasons for discarding the claim of defendant No.3 and for holding that the impugned revenue entries were inconsequen2al in the face of seBled civil rights.

8.

It is well seBled that in exercise of jurisdic2on under Sec2on 100 CPC, the High Court does not re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the same are shown to be perverse, illegal, or based on misreading of evidence, or unless a substan2al ques2on of law arises. In the present case, no such substan2al ques2on of law is made out. The appeal is nothing but a repe22on of issues already adjudicated upon mul2ple 2mes. 9.

The record further reveals that defendant No.3 had unsuccessfully challenged the plain2ff's rights before various forums, including civil courts, revenue authori2es, and even under the statutory scheme governing package deal proper2es. The present appeal appears to be yet another aBempt to reopen already seBled issues, which is impermissible in second appellate jurisdic2on. 10.

Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. 11.

The present regular second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 23.01.2026 JUDGE Neeka Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Uploaded on : January 23, 2026