The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that in suits for permanent injunction over immovable property, the critical moment for determining rights is the date of filing the suit, not subsequent alterations in revenue records. This ruling clarifies the evidentiary weight of khasra girdawari entries and reinforces the limited scope of second appeals under Section 100 CPC.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The suit property, measuring 34 kanal 5 marla in Village Pakhowal Kothian, Gurdaspur, is owned by the Central Government. The plaintiff, Gurdial Chand, claimed continuous possession as a tenant since a long period and filed a suit for permanent injunction against four defendants who allegedly interfered with his possession. The defendants contested, asserting their own possession and challenging the plaintiff’s claim.
Procedural History
- 1989: Suit filed by plaintiff on 12.10.1989 seeking permanent injunction
- 1993: Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of plaintiff, finding him in possession
- 1995: First Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s findings
- 2026: Regular Second Appeal filed by four defendants before the High Court
Relief Sought
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession. The defendants sought reversal of the decree, arguing that revenue records from Kharif 1990 reflected their possession and thus invalidated the plaintiff’s claim.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a change in khasra girdawari entries after the date of filing the suit can override established possession for the purpose of granting a permanent injunction, and whether such factual findings are open to re-appreciation in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellants
Counsel for the defendants argued that the revenue records from Kharif 1990 clearly reflected their possession, and that the Courts below erred in ignoring these entries. They contended that the plaintiff’s possession was no longer tenable after the change in records and that the decree was based on a misreading of documentary evidence.
For the Respondents
Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the findings were purely factual and based on consistent revenue entries up to Rabi 1990, which was the last recorded period before the suit was filed. He emphasized that the sudden shift in entries lacked any lawful explanation or supporting documentation, and that no substantial question of law arose to justify interference in a second appeal.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that in suits for injunction relating to immovable property, possession on the date of institution of the suit is the decisive factor. The record showed that the suit was filed on 12.10.1989, and revenue entries up to Rabi 1990 - prepared in February - March 1990 - continued to reflect the plaintiff’s possession. Kharif 1990 entries, prepared in September - October 1990, came after the suit was filed and could not displace the status quo as it existed at the critical time.
"Khasra girdawari entries, though not conclusive proof of title, carry significant evidentiary value regarding possession, particularly when they exhibit continuity over a long period. A sudden change in such entries, unsupported by cogent material or lawful process, cannot by itself be treated as proof of actual change of possession."
The Court further noted that the defendants’ conduct - filing a separate suit for injunction while concealing the earlier injunction order and securing an ex parte order later vacated - demonstrated an intent to disturb settled possession rather than establish lawful rights. The Courts below had properly weighed the continuity of possession, the absence of justification for altered entries, and the defendants’ conduct. The High Court held that the findings were neither perverse nor legally infirm, and that the appeal was merely an attempt to re-appreciate evidence, which is impermissible under Section 100 CPC in the absence of a substantial question of law.
The Verdict
The appellants’ appeal was dismissed. The Court held that possession on the date of filing the suit governs injunction relief, and that sudden changes in revenue records without lawful justification cannot override established possession. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld as based on proper appreciation of evidence.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Possession on Filing Date Is Decisive
- Practitioners must establish and prove possession as of the exact date the suit is filed
- Subsequent revenue entries, even if seemingly authoritative, cannot retroactively negate prior possession
- Evidence should focus on documentary continuity leading up to the filing date
Revenue Records Are Evidentiary, Not Conclusive
- Khasra girdawari entries are strong indicators of possession but not conclusive proof of title
- Sudden or unexplained changes in entries invite skepticism and require corroborative proof
- Courts will examine conduct, timing, and consistency before accepting altered entries
Second Appeals Are Not Fact Re-trials
- Section 100 CPC does not permit re-appreciation of evidence absent a substantial question of law
- Appellants must identify a clear error in legal interpretation, not factual disagreement
- Lower court findings based on concurrent appreciation of evidence are entitled to high deference
