Vijender Jain And ORS. v. Jasvinder Singh And ANR

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 23.04.2026 Vijender Jain and others ...Appellants

Versus

Jasvinder Singh and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:

Mr. V.P. Sangwan, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plain1ffs, having failed before both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court, have approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal impugning the concurrent findings, whereby their suit for permanent injunc1on has been dismissed. 2.

The case of the plain1ffs, in brief, was that one Hardev Singh, while aliena1ng por1ons of land comprised in khasra No. 322//19 in the year 1991, had le> a passage measuring 3 karam in width in the middle of the said khasra for the purposes of ingress and egress. The plain1ffs claim to have stepped into the shoes of the original vendees through a series of subsequent transfers culmina1ng in a sale deed dated 18.11.2015, and on that basis asserted a right to use the said passage. Alleging that the defendant, who had subsequently purchased a por1on of land in the same khasra, was aAemp1ng to obstruct the said passage, the suit for permanent injunc1on came to be filed.

3.

The defendant contested the suit by specifically denying the existence of any such passage. It was pleaded that neither the revenue record nor any municipal record reflected the existence of the alleged rasta

[2] and that Hardev Singh, a>er execu1ng the sale deeds in 1991, had no subsis1ng share sufficient to carve out any such passage. It was further pleaded that the plain1ffs' property abuts the main road and no such passage was ever in existence or required.

4.

Upon apprecia1on of evidence led by the par1es, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit on 21.08.2017. The appeal preferred by the plain1ffs was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 03.02.2026, which while formula1ng a specific point for determina1on regarding existence of the passage, affirmed the findings of the Trial Court. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the judgments of both the courts below with his assistance. 6.

At the outset, it needs to be emphasised that the jurisdic1on of this Court under Sec1on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to substan1al ques1ons of law. Interference with concurrent findings of fact is not warranted unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on misreading of evidence or contrary to seAled legal principles. 7.

In the present case, the en1re claim of the plain1ffs hinges upon an alleged agreement dated 16.05.1991 said to have been executed by Hardev Singh crea1ng a passage. However, both the courts below have concurrently found that a>er execu1on of the sale deeds dated 21.03.1991 and 16.05.1991, Hardev Singh was le> with only a negligible por1on of land in khasra No. 322//19, which was wholly insufficient to carve out a passage of the dimensions claimed by the plain1ffs. This finding is borne out from the documentary evidence on record and does not suffer from any infirmity.

8.

The legal consequence of this factual posi1on has also been correctly appreciated by the learned First Appellate Court by applying the

[3] well-seAled principle that no person can convey a beAer 1tle than what he himself possesses. Once it is found that Hardev Singh did not retain sufficient interest in the property, any alleged crea1on of passage by him becomes legally unenforceable.

9.

Another significant circumstance, which goes to the root of the maAer, is that the alleged s1pula1on regarding the passage does not find men1on in the registered sale deed executed on the same date, though the par1es and aAes1ng witnesses are common. In property transac1ons, par1cularly those affec1ng rights in immovable property, omission of such a vital condi1on from the registered instrument seriously undermines the authen1city of the subsequent plea based on an unregistered agreement. 10.

Further, the plain1ffs have failed to substan1ate the existence of the alleged passage through any independent or contemporaneous record. There is no entry in the revenue record, no sanc1oned site plan, and no municipal document reflec1ng the existence of such a rasta. The absence of such corrobora1ve material assumes importance, especially when the claim relates to a right of passage over land forming part of a joint holding.

11.

The plea of user of the passage by the plain1ffs or by third par1es such as telecom companies has also not been established in accordance with law so as to cons1tute either an easement by grant or by prescrip1on. Mere asser1ons, unsupported by cogent evidence, cannot be made the basis for conferring a legal right.

12.

It is also noteworthy that the plain1ffs did not implead all the necessary par1es, including other co-sharers, thereby rendering the suit defec1ve from the standpoint of proper adjudica1on of rights in joint property.

[4] 13.

The findings recorded by both the courts below are thus based on a proper apprecia1on of pleadings and evidence and are in consonance with seAled principles of law. No perversity, illegality or misreading of evidence has been pointed out which may warrant interference by this Court.

14.

In the considered opinion of this Court, no substan1al ques1on of law arises for determina1on in the present appeal. 15.

Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are affirmed. No order as to costs.

23.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No