Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines Interference With Concurrent Findings in Injunction Suit Over Alleged Common Wall
Case Name: Nirmal Singh v. Jagir Singh
Date of Judgment: 11 December 2025
Citation: RSA-1333-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Regular Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff challenging concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had rejected his suit for permanent injunction. The Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the foundational fact that the disputed wall between the parties’ houses was a common wall. In the absence of proof of a legal right or possession over the wall, no injunction could be granted, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration in second appeal.
Summary: The appellant–plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that a nine-inch wall between his house and that of the respondent, his real brother, was a common wall, and that the respondent was unlawfully interfering with construction and renovation being carried out by him. The defendant denied the claim of common ownership and asserted exclusive ownership over the wall.
Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that the plaintiff had failed to produce any documentary or reliable oral evidence to establish that the wall was common. During cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that he had no document or proof regarding ownership of the wall, and even his sole supporting witness conceded the same. On the other hand, the defendant led evidence supporting his exclusive ownership, which remained unrebutted.
In second appeal, the High Court noted that the entire case of the plaintiff rested on the assertion of a common wall, which constituted the very foundation of the suit. Once this foundational fact was not proved, no cause of action survived for restraining the defendant. The Court reiterated that in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff must stand on his own legs and establish a legal right requiring protection. Finding that the concurrent findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were neither perverse nor illegal, the Court refused to interfere.
Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the concurrent findings of the courts below did not warrant interference.