Cannot Challenge a Document Bearing Your Own Signature By Staying Out of the Witness Box: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Injunction Suit

"No Cogent and Reliable Evidence to Prove Exclusive Possession" —  Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a second appeal against concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. Justice Alka Sarin held that in a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff-appellants had wholly failed to prove exclusive physical possession over the disputed land of 0B-2B where a community religious shrine — a Guga Mari — stood, and that no substantial question of law arose warranting interference in second appeal.

The plaintiff-appellants, Karam Singh and another, filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming ownership and possession over agricultural land measuring 8B-0B, inherited from their father Sh. Dhoom Singh. Within this land, a piece measuring 0B-2B bearing Khasra No.28//22/2 contained a tubewell, their house, and critically, a Guga Mari — a personal religious shrine allegedly constructed by their father for worship purposes. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant-respondent No.1, the village Sarpanch, bore a grudge against them following a Panchayat election dispute, and was misusing his position to wrongfully assert rights over the land, particularly the Guga Mari.

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit but dismissed the claim qua the 0B-2B land of the Guga Mari. The First Appellate Court affirmed this dismissal on 18.11.2017, prompting the present Regular Second Appeal.

The central legal question before the High Court was whether, in a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff-appellants had discharged their burden of proving exclusive physical possession over the 0B-2B land where the Guga Mari stood. A collateral but critical issue was whether the compromise deed (Ex.D1), purportedly bearing the signature/thumb-impression of plaintiff-appellant No.2, could be relied upon given the appellants' challenge to its genuineness — and more pointedly, whether the failure of plaintiff-appellant No.2 to enter the witness box and deny his signature had any evidentiary consequence.

"Repeatedly Asked to Show Any Evidence...He Was Unable to Point Out to Any Such Evidence"

Justice Alka Sarin was unequivocal in her assessment of the plaintiffs' evidentiary failure. The Court noted that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants "was repeatedly asked to show any evidence to even remotely point out that the plaintiff-appellants were in exclusive possession of the land measuring 0B-2B, where the guga mari is situated, however, he was unable to point out to any such evidence."

This observation strikes at the heart of a settled legal principle: a suit for simpliciter permanent injunction stands or falls on proof of possession, not merely on a claim of ownership. The Court categorically observed that "since the suit is for simpliciter permanent injunction, the plaintiff-appellants were required to show their possession over the said land." Having failed to lead "any cogent and reliable evidence" to prove exclusive possession over the 0B-2B land, no fault could be found with the concurrent judgments of both Courts below.

On the critical question of the compromise deed (Ex.D1), the Court drew pointed attention to a glaring procedural lapse on the part of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff-appellant No.2 — Goverdhan Singh @ Gordhan Singh — the very person whose signature or thumb-impression appeared on the compromise deed — "chose not to step into the witness box." The natural and legal consequence of this absence was devastating. No handwriting expert was examined by the plaintiff-appellants to establish that the "signatures/thumb-impressions of the plaintiff-appellant No.2 had not been appended by him on Ex.D1." In effect, the plaintiffs made a bare allegation against the compromise deed but tendered no evidence whatsoever to substantiate it.

The evidence on behalf of the defendant-respondents stood uncontroverted: the Guga Mari was constructed over 2 biswa of land, the villagers worshipped there, and a fair was organized at the site every year. This established, to the satisfaction of both Courts below and the High Court, that the land was not in the exclusive physical possession of the plaintiff-appellants.

On the question of maintainability of the second appeal, the Court applied the settled jurisdictional restraint under Section 100 CPC: "No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case." Where two Courts have concurrently returned findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence, the High Court in second appeal does not sit as a third Court of facts. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as "devoid of any merit," and all pending applications were disposed of.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment reinforces two fundamental principles. First, that in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must stand on the strength of his own case, particularly by proving actual and exclusive possession — ownership alone does not suffice. Second, that a party who fails to enter the witness box to deny documentary evidence bearing his own signature cannot subsequently challenge that document through counsel's arguments alone. Where the author of an alleged compromise deed chooses silence over testimony, Courts are entitled to draw the inference that the document stands unimpeached. With concurrent findings of two Courts and no substantial question of law arising, the second appeal stood on no legal ground.

Date of Decision: 07.03.2026