No substantial question of law – regular second appeal dismissed by Punjab High Court

TITLE: Ram Kumar and Others  v Naveen Kumar

Decided On-: March 14, 2023

RSA-867-2022 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Ms. Alka Sarin

INTRODUCTION-  The Plaintiff-Appellants have filed this regular second appeal in opposition to the concurrent findings of fact that were made by both Courts below and were included in the contested judgment and decrees.


The plaintiff appellants claimed in their declaration and permanent injunction lawsuit that they were the owners and in possession of Khewat No. 36 Khasra No. 588, measuring 11 Kanals 7 Marlas and located in the revenue estate of Jhajjar, Tehsil and District Jhajjar. These brief facts are pertinent to the current lawsuit. According to an allegation, the plaintiff-appellants’ father built a house, which was later demolished because it was too old. The plaintiff-appellants then built five separate homes, where they have lived for the past 20 years or so. Furthermore, it was argued that the plaintiffs, appellants, owned a 50/227 share of the entire property.

The argument made was that because the agreement was unregistered, it did not grant the defendant-respondents any rights, titles, or interests and that they had no right to interfere with the plaintiff-appellants’ exclusive possession based on any sale deed. In their written statement, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 raised the defences of maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, and concealment of facts. On the merits, it was alleged that the plaintiff appellants own 50 shares out of a total of 227 shares, or 2 Kanals and 10 Marlas, of the total amount of land measuring 11 Kanals and 7 Marlas.

Additionally, it was claimed that the plaintiffs and appellants were Daya Chand’s heirs and that they held more of the suit land than their share of ownership, totaling 50/227 shares, or 2 Kanals and 10 Marlas.

In addition, it was claimed that defendant and respondent No.

agreement to sell relating to the 14 Marlas owned by Mohar Singh, from which some property had been bought in the name of the wife of the defendant-respondent No. 1. The defendant-respondents were further asserted to have limited their activities to his ownership and the scope of his rights under the agreement to sell dated 06.02.2013.

It was not filed a replication.


The plaintiff-appellants’ knowledgeable attorney would argue that the lower courts erred in only partially deciding the case, that defendant-respondent No. 3 has no right, title, or interest in the suit property, and that a restraint order should have been issued against her as well.

Heard. The plaintiff-appellants failed to demonstrate their exclusive possession of the suit property, it was concurrently determined. I don’t see any reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of fact made by both courts below given the lack of any evidence demonstrating their exclusive possession over the suit property and the fact that the sale deed Ex.D/1 dated 25.03.2013 was validly executed. The plaintiff appellants have correctly been denied the relief of declaration, and they have additionally correctly only been granted the relief of an injunction against defendant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In light of the aforementioned, I do not think the current regular second appeal has any merit. No legal issue, much less any significant legal issue, arises for determination in the present which is wholly devoid of any merit

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by–  Steffi Desousa

Click here toview judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *