The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has dismissed a Regular Second Appeal filed by a plaintiff seeking declaration and possession of land, affirming the concurrent findings of two lower courts. The Court held that the appellant failed to present any “substantial question of law” as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and emphasized that factual disputes cannot be re-analyzed at the second appeal stage.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the appellant, Bisham Lal Garg. The appellant claimed to be the owner in possession of land measuring 0-3 bigha in Village Bamta, Bilaspur, purchased via a sale deed dated November 16, 1993.
The appellant alleged that Defendant No. 1 (Hardei), in collusion with revenue officials, illegally obtained a mutation (No. 287) in July 1998 for 0-1 bigha of land by deducting it from his property. This land was subsequently sold by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 2 in January 2001. The appellant sought a declaration that the mutation and the subsequent sale deed were null and void, and in the alternative, prayed for a decree of possession.
The suit was initially dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bilaspur, on December 6, 2007. This decision was later affirmed by the District Judge, Bilaspur, on December 24, 2024. The present Regular Second Appeal was filed to challenge these concurrent judgments.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Paresh Sharma, contended that the lower courts’ judgments were erroneous and perverse. He argued that the courts failed to appreciate the controversy regarding the illegal deduction of the appellant’s land and the arbitrary changes made to the revenue records.
Conversely, Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate for the respondents, defended the lower courts’ decisions. He submitted that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the evidence. He further argued that since there were concurrent findings of fact, the High Court should not interfere in a second appeal.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court, presided over by Justice Romesh Verma, observed that the appellant’s case rested primarily on the claim that 1 biswa of land was wrongly deducted from his holdings through mutation No. 287. However, the Court noted that the appellant failed to provide “concrete and substantial evidence” to corroborate that the area sold to Defendant No. 2 was actually a part of the appellant’s Khasra numbers.
Justice Verma remarked:
“The plaintiff has not been able to establish that the correction in the revenue entries was got done by deducting 1 biswa of the suit land and that the same was illegally shown to be owned and possessed by defendant No.1.”
The Court highlighted that while the appellant relied on oral testimony, the defendants produced documentary evidence (Ext. D-1 to D-10) supporting their ownership and possession.
Regarding the scope of Section 100 CPC, the Court cited several Supreme Court precedents, including Nazir Mohamed vs. J. Kamala & Ors. and Hero Vinoth vs. Seshammal. The Court reiterated that a second appeal lies only on a “substantial question of law.”
The Court observed:
“It is not open to re-agitate facts or to call upon the High Court to re-analyze or re-appreciate evidence in a second appeal… A pure finding of fact is not open to challenge in second appeal even if appreciation of evidence is palpably erroneous & finding of fact incorrect.”
The Decision
The High Court concluded that all points raised by the appellant were purely questions of fact. Finding no perversity in the impugned judgments, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating it was devoid of merit.
Case Details
Case Title: Bisham Lal Garg vs. Hardei & Ors.
Case No.: RSA No. 226 of 2025
Bench: Justice Romesh Verma
Date: April 20, 2026
