02.2025 Jagga Singh a Singh & Ors. v. Puran Sing n Singh & Ors.

Defendants are in regular secon r second appeal. For the convenience, parties a rties are hereinafter referred to by the by their original po nal position(s) as in civil suit i.e. app .e. appellants as the defendants and th and the respondents ndents as plaintiffs. [5] Plaintiffs filed a suit, seeking d eking decree of permanent injunction ction in a form of m of restraint against the defendants ndants from interfering in the peacef peaceful RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cultivating vating possession of the plaintiffs ove fs over the suit land as described in th d in the 2 RSA-9765-2018 (O& (O&M) head-note o note of the plaint. [6] Plaintiffs claimed that they ar are in cultivating possession of th n of the suit land as and as gair marusi tenants under Cen er Central Government since year 198 ar 1986. Initially, th lly, their father-Thakar Singh was ind inducted by the Central Governme ernment over the su the suit land. The same was uncultiv ncultivable initially. Huge amount wa unt was spent to ma t to make the land cultivable. After de fter death of Thakar Singh, the plaintif laintiffs being his L his LRs continued to be in cultivati ltivating possession over the suit lan uit land. Plaintiffs f tiffs further claimed to be regularl egularly paying rent in the name ame of Provincial incial Government. [7] Suit was contested by the defe e defendant-appellants, who denied th nied the possession ession of the plaintiffs and claimed th med that its defendant Nos.1 to 3, wh 3, who are in poss n possession of the suit land and a and also relied upon pendency of y of an application cation, seeking correction of the khas khasra girdawri before AC 2nd Grad Grade, Fazilka. [8] Court of the first instance fram e framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is ff is entitled to the relief of permane injunction as prayed for d for? OPPP

2. Whether the suit of th f the plaintiff is not maintainable nable? OPD.

3. Whether the suit is bad bad for non-service of notice u/s 8 u/s 80 CPC upon the defendan dants? OPD.

4. Relief. ” [9] While returning findings on gs on Issue No.1, Court of the fir the first instance aft nce after analyzing evidence threadba readbare came to the conclusion that a that as per docume ocumentary evidence placed on reco n record by the plaintiffs in a form o form of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Exhibits P P-1 & P-2 i.e. jamabandi for the y the year 2004-2005, 1999-2000, nam 0, name 3 RSA-9765-2018 (O& (O&M) of father o ther of the plaintiffs-Thakar Singh Singh is reflected in the column o umn of cultivation. vation. Further they have two receipt eceipts of challans Exhibits P-4 and and P-7 to prove p ove payment of lease money. Thus, Thus, the possession of the plaintif laintiffs having bee g been proved on record and there there being no evidence led by th by the defendants dants to breach the presumption atta on attached to the record of rights, t , the plaintiffs tiffs are entitled for decree of permane rmanent injunction. [10] Dis-satisfied with the finding indings recorded by the learned Tri ed Trial Court, defe t, defendants preferred appeal. [11] Learned First Appellate C ate Court, after re-appreciating evidence ca nce came to the conclusion that the d t the defendants in order to prove the ve their possession ession have relied upon ocular evidenc vidence. All their witnesses have trie ve tried to prove th ove that no crop was ever sown on th on the land in dispute. The said stan id stand taken by th by the witnesses in their testimony is beyond pleadings and is again against the revenue evenue record. [12] Counsel for the appellants thou ts though has tried to assail the finding findings of the learn learned Courts below, but has not be not been able to point out any evidenc vidence that can be can be read to hold that the presum resumption attached to record of rig of right proved on r ed on record by the plaintiffs stands reb rebutted. [13] Scope of second appeal under under Section 41 of the Punjab Cour Courts Act, 1918 1918 came up for consideration befo n before Apex Court in Randhir Kau Kaur Versus Pri s Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors. 2019(17 9(17) SCC 71 wherein it was held a held as under :- RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “14. The Division Bench of of Punjab and Haryana High Cou Court in a judgment reported in Sa Sadhu v. Mst. Kishni, 1980 AI 0 AIR (Punjab) 85 set aside the judg judgment of the learned Single Benc Bench 4 RSA-9765-2018 (O& (O&M) in an intra court appeal in ter in terms of the provisions of law as as it existed prior to 1976, and held held as under: "12. The scope of seco second appeal as envisaged by sectio ection 100 of the Civil Proced rocedure Code and section 41 of th of the Punjab Courts Act has has been a matter of judicial scrutin rutiny a number of times by by this court as well as by the fin e final court, that is, the Supr upreme Court of India. The learne counsel for the appella ellant has actually made a referenc erence in this regard to D Detty Paitabhiramaswami v. v. S. Hanymayya [AIR 1959 Supreme Court 1

57.], 57. Madamanchi Ramappa appa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa [AI [AIR 1963 Supreme Court urt 1633.], Bithal Dass Khanna na v. Hafiz Abdul Hai [196 [1969 S.C. Notes 481.] and Afsa Afsar Shaikh v. Soleman Bib Bibi [(1976) 2 SCC 142 : AIR 197 1976 Supreme Court 163.].

63.]. These pronouncements; in in a nutshell, lay down th n that there is no jurisdiction on to entertain a second appe appeal on the ground of a erroneou finding of fact, however ever gross or inexecusable the erro may seem to be. Nor do r does the fact that the finding of th of the first appellate Court is u t is upon some documentary evidenc idence make it any the less a fin a finding of fact. A Judge of the Hig High Court has, therefore, re, no jurisdiction to interfere re in second appeal with the the findings of fact given by the fir e first appellate court based ased upon an appreciation of th of the relevant evidence. Their heir Lordships have further observe served that the only ground on on which such an appeal can be sa e said to be competent is wh where there is an error in law o aw or procedure and not mer merely on an error on a question ion of fact.

14. xx xx xx In view of the ab e above discussion, we are clearly rly of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document jurisdiction in setting a ng aside the findings of the fact o act on the view that the lear learned Single Judge exceeded h ed his 5 RSA-9765-2018 (O& (O&M) issue No. 2. The provisio visions of section 100 being clear an ar and unambiguous, there wa was no scope for interference wi e with those findings. We thus hus allow the appeal and set aside th ide the judgment of the learne arned Single Judge and affirm th m the judgment and decree p ee passed by the District Judge. Th e. The parties are, however left r left to bear their own costs.

15. A perusal of the aforesa resaid judgments would show that th at the jurisdiction in second appea ppeal is not to interfere with th th the findings of fact on the grou ground that findings are erroneou neous, however, gross or inexcusabl sable the error may seem to be. Th e. The findings of fact will also incl include the findings on the basis sis of documentary evidence. The The jurisdiction to interfere in th in the second appeal is only wher where there is an error in law o aw or procedure and not merely an e an error on a question of fact.”

14. The said dictum was further el ther elaborately echoed by three Judge Judges Bench in h in Satyender and Ors. Versus Sar Saroj and Ors. 2022 AIR (Suprem Court) 473 4732 as under :- “xxxx xxxx xxxx

17. Be that as it may, though t gh the requirement of formulation of n of a substantial question of law was was not necessary, yet Section 41 of t of the Punjab Courts Act, requires th es that only such decisions are to to be considered in second appeal wh l which are contrary to law or to som custom or usage having the for e force of law or the court below ha failed to determine some materi aterial issue of law or custom or usa having the force of law. Ther herefore, what is important is still still a "question of law". In other wo words, second appeal is not a foru where court has to re-examine ine or re-appreciate questions of fa of fact settled by the Trial Court and the d the Appellate Court.........” [15] In view of above, this Court is ourt is of the considered view that p hat pure findings of of fact have been recorded by the by the learned Courts below. Under th nder the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document garb of sec of second appeal, this Court cannot nnot re-appreciate the evidence. The . There 6 RSA-9765-2018 (O& (O&M) being no pe no perversity or misreading of evide evidence, this Court does not find an find any reason to in n to interfere in the findings recorded orded by the learned Courts below. [16] [17] Dismissed. All pending miscellaneous neous application(s), if any, stand stands disposed of ed off. .2025 20.02.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document