A High Court judgment clarifies that failure to specify khasra numbers does not defeat cogent documentary and oral evidence, including revenue demarcation reports and site plans, which can establish the existence of a passage. The ruling restores the primacy of evidenced-based findings over technical objections, reaffirming trial court methodology and serving as a binding authority for subordinate courts in land and property disputes involving easement rights and demarcation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/2972/2012 of CHAIN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs SWARAN LAL AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011115682012 |
| Date of Registration | 11-07-2012 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules First Appellate Court; Restores Trial Court finding |
| Type of Law | Civil – Property Law (Permanent Injunction, Easement, Demarcation) |
| Questions of Law | Whether documentary and oral evidence, including demarcation reports and site plans, establish the existence of a passage despite technical omission of khasra numbers. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that the existence of a passage can be duly established through reliable documentary and oral evidence, such as demarcation reports and site plans prepared by revenue authorities, even when khasra numbers are not expressly mentioned. Disregarding material evidence on the ground of non-specification of khasra numbers is hyper-technical and unsustainable. Once the passage is proved through such evidence, mere technicalities cannot defeat substantive rights. The findings of the first appellate court, based on conjectures and assumptions while ignoring cogent material, are liable to be set aside. The suit for injunction is not tenable where the existence of the passage is established by credible evidence, and the counterclaim must be decreed accordingly. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence Relied Upon | Reliance upon oral as well as documentary evidence (demarcation report, site plan, revenue records), primacy of evidence over technical objections, test of reliability of official documents. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiff filed for permanent injunction restraining defendants from carving a passage in suit land; defendants counterclaimed existence and right of use of a passage based on demarcation and revenue records; trial court decreed the counterclaim and dismissed plaintiff’s suit; first appellate court reversed; High Court, on second appeal, restored the trial court’s findings after examining the sufficiency of evidence. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India and courts addressing similar property and demarcation matters |
| Overrules | Judgment and decree dated 13.12.2011 of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Gurdaspur |
| Follows | Trial court’s judgment and decree dated 30.07.2009 (restored) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that reliable documentary and oral evidence—particularly official demarcation reports, site plans, and revenue records—can establish the existence of a passage, even if khasra numbers are not expressly specified.
- First appellate courts cannot disregard cogent evidence on mere hyper-technicalities like non-mentioning of khasra numbers if official documents establish the fact in dispute.
- Lawyers should focus on ensuring strong evidentiary records (especially revenue authority documents) to substantiate right of passage or easement claims in property litigation.
- Judgments based on conjectures, assumptions, or technical objections at the cost of substantial evidence are liable to be set aside.
- This judgment is a binding precedent within Punjab and Haryana on the evidentiary value of demarcation and site reports in injunction and property disputes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The trial court properly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence, including the Akash Sajra (map), site plan, demarcation report, jamabandi, and musavi, to establish the existence of a 22-karam wide passage.
- The demarcation report, prepared by revenue authorities in the presence of both parties, was held to be reliable and specifically marked the passage.
- The plaintiff himself admitted during cross-examination that a passage led up to Killa No. 119.
- The first appellate court erred in discarding this evidence on the technical ground that khasra numbers were not mentioned, even when the demarcation proceedings and musavi supported the existence of the passage.
- The High Court held that technical omissions cannot override substantive evidentiary findings, especially where revenue records and demarcation reports corroborate the existence of the passage.
- The suit was filed by the plaintiff immediately after the demarcation, indicating mala fide.
- When reliable documentary and oral evidence establish a fact, technical lapses such as non-specification of numbers do not defeat substantive rights.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Defendant):
- The first appellate court ignored documentary and oral evidence on record.
- The dispute was only about the existence of the passage, not ownership, which was admitted.
- Cogent evidence was led through examination of revenue officials, draftsman, and site plans/documents that clearly marked the passage.
- The appellate court erroneously brushed aside evidence on the ground of non-proof of khasra number, despite demarcation and musavi showing the location.
- Musavi, even if not exhibited, can always be referred to for collateral purposes.
Respondent (Plaintiff):
- Supported the appellate court; asserted that no passage existed through the suit land.
- Alleged that defendants fabricated documents later to carve out a passage.
- Argued the counterclaim was self-contradictory and no khasra number of such passage was produced.
- Questioned how defendants accessed their land if the disputed passage did not exist, pointing to the vagueness of the site plan.
Factual Background
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from carving out a passage through the suit land. The defendants, admitting ownership with the plaintiff, claimed an easementary right to a 22-karam wide passage, citing long-standing existence as per demarcation and revenue records and filed a counterclaim seeking mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to remove encroachments. The trial court decreed the counterclaim, but the first appellate court reversed the findings, holding that the existence of the passage was not proved due to non-specification of the khasra number. The High Court, on regular second appeal, was called to determine the correctness of these findings.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discusses the evidentiary value of demarcation reports, site plans, and revenue records in civil property disputes, especially regarding easement and right of passage.
- It emphasizes that there is no statutory requirement prescribing that passing a technical test like khasra number specification overrides otherwise cogent and credible evidence duly recorded during demarcation and supported by government records.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment demonstrates that demarcation reports and revenue records prepared in presence of both parties are to be given primacy over hyper-technical objections in proceedings for injunction and easement/right of passage disputes.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reinforces primacy of substantive evidence in land disputes over technical objections.
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overrules the contrary approach taken by the first appellate court focused on technical lapses rather than actual evidence.