The High Court clarifies that credible oral and documentary evidence from official demarcation proceedings and contemporaneous conduct can establish the existence of a right of way, even if khasra numbers are not specifically mentioned in revenue records; upholds trial court decree, sets aside lower appellate court’s finding as unsustainable. This serves as binding precedent for property and land litigation in Punjab and Haryana, reinforcing primacy of material evidence over hyper-technical objections.
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 authority within Punjab & Haryana; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Sets aside lower appellate court decree; restores trial court decree |
| Type of Law | Property law / Land law / Civil procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether absence of specific khasra number in revenue records defeats proof of passage/right of way when supported by strong oral and documentary evidence? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that the trial court correctly appreciated oral and documentary evidence, including official demarcation reports, to establish the existence of a passage of 22 karams wide between specified parcels of land. The appellate court erred in discarding this evidence merely due to non-specification of khasra numbers in revenue records. Hyper-technical objections cannot override cogent, credible evidence and contemporaneous conduct, particularly where official documents and admissions by parties support the existence of the right of way. The trial court’s decree granting relief to the defendants (regarding their right to the passage) was restored, reaffirming the primacy of substantive evidence over technicalities in property disputes. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Relied on official demarcation reports, oral admissions, documentary evidence, and principles from revenue proceedings. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining carving out of passage in suit land; defendants admitted his ownership but claimed existence of passage, supported by demarcation report and revenue records; plaintiff denied existence of passage; trial court found for defendants, appellate court reversed, High Court restored trial court decree. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Overrules | Decree of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur dated 13.12.2011 |
| Follows | Principles of appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and precedence of demarcation in land law |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that reliable oral and documentary evidence, including demarcation proceedings, can establish a right of way even where khasra numbers are not specified in revenue records.
- Hyper-technicalities regarding record-keeping (such as khasra number omission) do not override substantive and corroborated evidence.
- Appellate courts must not disregard cogent demarcation and admission evidence on procedural/technical grounds.
- Lawyers should ensure to lead and highlight demarcation and site plan evidence in property/right of way disputes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined the record and held the findings of the first appellate court to be unsustainable, as they disregarded strong evidence.
- The trial court had relied upon oral evidence, official demarcation reports, and site plans (including Akash Sajra), which conclusively proved the existence of the passage.
- The appellate court erred in ignoring this material evidence and dismissed it for want of mention of khasra numbers, which is a hyper-technical view.
- The High Court emphasized that official revenue records, demarcation proceedings conducted in the presence of parties, and admissions in cross-examination outweigh objections based on incomplete khasra details.
- Once the existence of the passage is so established, the plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction to prevent its use.
- The suit filed immediately after the demarcation of land indicated mala fides on part of the plaintiff.
- The judgment of the trial court was therefore restored, and the appellate decree was set aside.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Defendants-Appellants):
- The dispute was only about the existence of the passage, not ownership of land.
- Defendants led cogent oral and documentary evidence, including official demarcation proceedings, site plans, and revenue records, which established the passage.
- Appellate court erroneously ignored this evidence on mere technical ground that khasra number not mentioned.
- Musavi (demarcation document) clearly showed the passage.
Respondent (Plaintiff):
- No passage ever existed through the suit land.
- Defendants fabricated documents to claim right of way.
- Counterclaim was self-contradictory; no explanation for how defendants accessed their land during pendency.
- The site plan produced by defendants was vague and did not connect to disputed property.
Factual Background
The plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from carving out a passage (rasta) through the suit land measuring 7 Kanals 7 Marlas in Village Bhaini Bangar, District Gurdaspur. The defendants, while admitting the plaintiff’s ownership, claimed existence of a 22-karams-wide passage since consolidation, evidenced by demarcation and revenue records. The plaintiff denied any such passage and claimed the defendants fabricated evidence. The trial court decreed the suit for the defendants (allowing passage), but the first appellate court reversed this, dismissing the counterclaim and granting relief to the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discusses procedural aspects of property law and civil procedure regarding injunctions and right of way.
- It analyzes the evidentiary value of demarcation proceedings under the revenue/statutory regime in Punjab and Haryana.
- Emphasizes primacy of material evidence (oral and documentary) and admits use of official documents (demarcation reports, field book entries, site plans) where they corroborate existence of easement/right of way, notwithstanding technical objections regarding land record particulars.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed