Darshana v. Balbir

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 06.05.2026 Smt. Darshana ...Appellant

Versus

Balbir

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-plain1ff assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2025 passed by learned Addi1onal District Judge, Jhajjar, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-plain1ff against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh, was dismissed and the findings of the learned trial Court were affirmed. 2.

For the sake of convenience, the par1es shall be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court. 3.

The plain1ff ins1tuted a suit for possession and permanent injunc1on alleging that she had purchased a plot measuring 58 square yards situated within the Abadi Deh of village Barkhtabad, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar vide registered sale deed No.837 dated 07.05.2013 executed by Vedwa1. According to the plain1ff, aBer purchase, she came in possession of the said property and had been using the same for tethering caCle and storage of firewood. It was pleaded that in December, 2020, the defendant illegally encroached upon a por1on of the suit property and raised a wall thereupon without the knowledge or consent of the plain1ff. Upon objec1on being raised, the defendant allegedly threatened the

[2] plain1ff and refused to vacate the encroached area. Consequently, the suit seeking possession of the encroached por1on and permanent injunc1on was filed.

4.

Upon no1ce, the defendant contested the suit and denied the allega1ons of encroachment. It was pleaded that the defendant himself was owner in possession of a plot measuring 115 square yards situated within Lal Dora of village Barkhtabad by virtue of agreements dated 20.10.2020 and 03.12.2020 executed in his favour. The defendant asserted that the disputed por1on formed part of his own property and not that of the plain1ff. It was further pleaded that the plain1ff had inten1onally shown incorrect dimensions and boundaries in order to create a false claim. 5.

Necessary issues were framed. Evidence was produced by the par1es. The plain1ff appeared as PW-1 and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. She deposed that she had purchased the suit property measuring 58 square yards through registered sale deed dated 07.05.2013 and had remained in possession thereof. She alleged that the defendant had illegally encroached upon a por1on of the plot and raised construc1on thereon in December, 2020. In support of her case, she relied upon the site plan Ex.P1 and cer1fied copy of sale deed Ex.P2. During cross-examina1on, however, the plain1ff admiCed that no demarca1on of the plot had ever been conducted. She further admiCed that the site plan had been prepared in the Court Complex on the basis of instruc1ons supplied by her husband and not aBer actual spot inspec1on. She also conceded that her plot was lying vacant and no boundary wall or fencing had been raised by her. The plain1ff further admiCed that the defendant had already raised four walls around his plot about two years earlier.

6.

The draBsman, who prepared the site plan Ex.P1, was not

[3] examined by the plain1ff. No Local Commissioner's report was produced. Likewise, no independent witness from the locality, such as neighbour, Panch, Sarpanch or Numberdar, was examined to corroborate the allega1on of encroachment.

7.

On the other hand, the defendant appeared and asserted that he was owner in possession of the disputed property by virtue of agreements executed in his favour and denied any encroachment upon the plain1ff's land.

8.

Both the courts aBer analysing the evidence on record have concurrently held that plain1ff failed to prove encroachment and dismissed the suit.

9.

Assailing the findings, learned counsel for the appellantplain1ff contended that the registered sale deed Ex.P2 conclusively established ownership of the plain1ff over the suit property. It was argued that the defendant had failed to produce any cogent evidence disproving the plain1ff's 1tle or possession. According to the appellant, both the Courts below erred in discarding the site plan and failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record. It was submiCed that the findings recorded by the Courts below were contrary to the evidence and liable to be set aside.

10.

There is no merit in the submissions. Although, the plain1ff successfully proved ownership of the property described in sale deed Ex.P2, mere proof of 1tle was insufficient to succeed in a suit based on alleged encroachment. The plain1ff was addi1onally required to establish the exact iden1ty of the encroached por1on and unlawful possession of the defendant over the same.

11.

The principal basis of the plain1ff's case was the site plan

[4] Ex.P1. However, the draBsman, who prepared the said site plan was never examined and, therefore, the document remained unproved in accordance with law.

12.

Besides, the courts below no1ced material discrepancies between the boundaries reflected in the sale deed and those shown in the site plan. The plain1ff's own admissions during cross-examina1on revealed that the site plan had not been prepared aBer spot inspec1on and that no demarca1on had ever been conducted. In absence of any demarca1on report, Local Commissioner's report or independent corrobora1ve evidence, the allega1on of encroachment remained unsubstan1ated. 13.

Accordingly, it is concluded that the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are based upon proper apprecia1on of evidence and do not suffer from perversity or illegality. Since no substan1al ques1on of law arose for considera1on, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.

14.

Pending miscellaneous applica1on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

06.05.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No