Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 82952

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Pankaj Jain, J
Bara Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jai Kaur – Respondent
RSA No.76 of 1993

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Suraj Kaundal
For the Respondents: Sumit Sinha, Sukhdeep S. Brar

A judgment that travels beyond the pleadings of the parties and misreads the evidence on record is perverse and constitutes a substantial question of law, justifying intervention by the High Court in a second appeal.

Headnote:(A) Punjab Courts Act, 1918 - Section 41 - Second Appeal - Scope - Misreading of evidence and deciding beyond pleadings constitutes perversity and a substantial question of law.

(B) Civil Procedure - Pleadings - Duty of Court - A court must restrict its findings to the specific land area and claims pleaded by the parties; travelling beyond pleadings by creating a new case for the plaintiffs makes the judgment perverse.

(C) Res Judicata - Previous litigation settled title over specified land area; subsequent claims involving the same parties and property are barred by the principle of res judicata.

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought joint possession of 1/2 share in land measuring 77 Kanal 12 Marlas, claiming as legal heirs of the original owner. The defendants countered that previous litigation (Civil Suit No. 13 of 1964) had already settled that the plaintiffs had no rights. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court modified the judgment based on a finding that the land involved was 81 Kanal 13 Marlas rather than the 77 Kanal 12 Marlas pleaded.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the First Appellate Court erred by travelling beyond the pleadings and the evidence. The court noted that the land in question was already subject to previous judicial findings and partial alienation/gifting, leaving no basis for the plaintiffs' claim. The appellate court's decision was set aside as perverse.

Issues: 1. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in exceeding the scope of the pleadings and evidence? 2. Whether the suit claim was hit by the principle of res judicata?

Ratio Decidendi: When a lower appellate court ignores the pleaded case and the established evidence on record to make out a new case in favour of a party, such findings suffer from perversity, warranting interference in second appeal.

Result: Appeal allowed; the judgment of the trial court is restored and the plaintiffs' suit is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial court facts and claims by the parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. procedural history including trial court findings and appellate modifications. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments regarding the appellate court's scope of inquiry. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court's analysis of evidentiary record and pleadings. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. scope of second appeal under state laws and case precedents. (Para 16 , 17)
6. final order reversing the lower appellate court judgment. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

Defendants No.2 and 8 are in second appeal.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as by their original position before the Court of the First Instance i.e., the appellants as defendants No.2 and 8, (since deceased and thus are being represented by their LRs), respondents No.1 to 5 as 'plaintiffs', respondent No.6 as 'defendant No.1', respondents No.7 to 19 as defendants No.3 to 16.

3. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking decree of joint possession of 1/2 share of land measuring 77 Kanal 12 Marlas, as detailed out in the head-note of the plaint.

3.1. Plaintiff No.1 namely Jai Kaur and predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No.2 to 5 Dhan Kaur, are daughters of Chand Kaur, who are asserting to be in joint possession of the estate left by brother of Chand Kaur, namely Sarwan Singh.

3.2. As per the plaintiffs, Jai Kaur and Dhan Kaur are owners to the extent of 1/2 share in the suit land. Defendants No.1 and 2 sold specific khasra numbers in favour of defendants No.3 to 8 even though they had no right to sell the land. Defendants No. 1 and 2 further sold 32 Kanals of land in favour of fathers of defendants No.9 to 11 and also sold 15 Kanal 14 Marlas of land in favour of defendants No.13 and 14. As per plaintiffs, defendants No.1 and 2 had no right to sell the specific land without getting the same partitioned. Defendants No. 1 and 2 having sold area more than their share, the sale deeds are not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs.

4. Suit was contested by the defendants. As per them, defendants No.1 and 2 earlier filed a Civil Suit No. 13 of 1964 against plaintiff Jai Kaur and her sister Dhan Kaur. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.1965. It was held that Jai Kaur and Dhan Kaur have no concern with the suit land. The appeal preferred by Jai Kaur and Dhan Kaur was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.03.1966. As per defendants, Kishan Singh and Sarwan Singh, sons of Kahla Singh, were owners of the land, in dispute, in equal shares. Kishan Singh died on 06.08.1957. He was succeeded by Sarwan Singh. Sarwan Singh during his lifetime sold 8 Kanal 19 Marlas of land vide sale deed dated 01.07.1960 in favour of Ujjagar Singh, Nazar Singh, and Bhag Singh. Sarwan Singh bequeathed the suit land in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 vide two WILLs dated 05.01.1962 and 25.09.1962. Mutation of inheritance of Sarwan Singh in favour of Jai Kaur and Dhan Kaur was sanctioned. The same was held to be bad. Defendants No.1 and 2 were declared to be the owners of the suit land in question. Defendant No.1 sold 15 Kanals 14 Marlas of land in favour of defendants No.13 and 14. They sold 6 Marlas of land in favour of defendants No.15 and 16 vide sale deed dated 09.01.1984. Defendants No. 10, 11, and 12 purchased 64 Kanals of land from defendants No.1 and 2 vide sale deed dated 01.07.1969. Defendants being bonafide purchasers for a valuable consideration are in possession as exclusive owners of specific parcels of land. Thus, the present suit deserves to be dismissed.

5. Suit filed by the plaintiffs was put to trial by the Court of the First Instance, framing following Issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of 1/2 share in the suit land? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are successors in interest of Smt. Dhan Kaur deceased? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to joint possession to the extent of 1/2 share in the suit land as the sale are not binding on the rights of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 82952

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHPankaj Jain, JBara Singh – AppellantVersusJai Kaur – RespondentRSA No.76 of 1993

A judgment that travels beyond the pleadings of the parties and misreads the evidence on record is perverse and constitutes a substantial question of law, justifying intervention by the High Court in a second appeal.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Pankaj Jain, J
Bara Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jai Kaur – Respondent
RSA No.76 of 1993