IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Sarita Thakran … Appellant Versus Long Lata @ Launge Lata … Respondent II. RSA No. 4007 of 2025 (O&M)

Sarita Thakran … Appellant Versus Long Lata @ Launge Lata … Respondent Reserved on: 12.02.2026 Pronounced on: 16.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate For appellant Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate For the respondents.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

These two Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are directed against the common judgment dated 04.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant–defendant was dismissed and the cross-appeal filed by the plaintiff–respondent was allowed to the extent of granting mesne profits @ ₹10,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till delivery of possession.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original status before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the first floor of the residential house situated at Village Islampur, Gurugram; permanent injunction restraining creation of third-party rights; and recovery of mesne profits. The case set up was that the suit property had been purchased by her husband Late Ram Chander Thakran, vide registered sale deed dated 01.02.1979 Ex.P1). During his lifetime, he executed a registered Will dated 06.07.2009 bequeathing the said property in favour of the plaintiff. Upon his death on 18.07.2011, the plaintiff asserted that she became the absolute owner.The defendant, who was married to the plaintiff’s son on 06.12.2007, was permitted to occupy the first floor as a licensee. The licence was revoked on 15.01.2016. Despite termination, possession was not surrendered.

4. The defendant’s stand was that the suit property had been acquired by the State; that the plaintiff was not the owner; that the premises constituted a shared household within the meaning of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; and that in view of the alleged dispute regarding title, a suit for mandatory injunction without declaration was not maintainable.

5. The trial Court, after framing issues and appreciating evidence led by the parties, partly decreed the suit for mandatory injunction and declined mesne profits. However, the First Appellate Court affirmed the decree of eviction and also granted mesne profits @ ₹10,000/- per month.

6. Aggrieved defendant has now approached this court against concurrent decrees of eviction; and decree of mesne profits by first appellate court.

7. This court has considered submissions of both the sides and perused the record.

8. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless it is shown that such findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or arrived at by ignoring material evidence or applying incorrect legal principles. The present appeals have to be examined within that limited scope.

9. The ownership of the plaintiff has been concurrently upheld by both Courts below. The registered sale deed in favour of Late Ram Chander stands proved. The Will dated 06.07.2009 was proved through an attesting witness and its registration was also established. The death of the testator is not in dispute. No suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the Will has been demonstrated.

10. The plea of acquisition by State was duly considered by courts below. Though an Award of 2006 (Ex.DW2/1) was produced, the evidence on record shows that part of the land had been released. No document was produced to establish that possession of the constructed property was ever taken by the State. Compensation was admittedly not withdrawn. On the contrary, the plaintiff continued to exercise dominion over the property, including lett