This second appeal against a dismissal of a permanent injunction suit was dismissed by the Single Bench. The court held that findings on title and possession were well-settled by lower courts and no substantial question of law arose for interference under Section 100 CPC.
Second Appeal No. 1097 of 2018 allowed to be dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 26
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 1097 of 2018
Appellant :- Vijay And 5 Others Respondent :- Beni Ram And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dhiraj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Arunesh Singh
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Vashistha Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of defendants-respondents is taken on record.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2012 confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Hathras, whereby the suit of plaintiff-appellants being Original Suit No. 448 of 1996 for permanent injunction has been dismissed.
The plaint case of the plaintiffs-appellants has been that they were granted lease (patta) on 15.07.1987 and 17.10.1986 respectively by the Land Management Committee in respect of the suit land and this is how it is alleged that the plaintiffs are in possession over their respective plots. The original defendant denied the plaint allegation. However, during pendency of suit, the defendant died and his sons and legal heirs were brought on record. The trial court has gone into various aspects of the matter and appreciated the evidence both, documentary as well as oral and has concluded that the plaintiffs have themselves admitted the possession of Beni Ram and after his death his heirs.
Evaluating the oral evidence in respect of lease and possession the trial court held that though the lease was claimed to have been granted in 1987 but the proceedings of allotment by Land Management Committee were not produced and even the date of allotment could not be disclosed. The Pradhan who must have been the Chairman of Land Management Committee while making allotment was also not produced to prove the lease document. It was though stated in the oral testimony of plaintiff PW-4 that the Lekhpal could have identified the land in respect of lease but even Lekhpal was not produced. Thus, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove the plaint case
that they had been granted lease of land. It has come on record as an admission of the plaintiffs that the defendants are in possession of the property.
Under the circumstances, the trial court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court recorded the concurrent findings of fact.
In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that they were granted valid lease but learned counsel for the appellants on repeated query could not satisfy as to why the findings recorded by the trial court concurred by the lower appellate court on the issue of validity of lease was perverse. It could also not pointed out as to how the findings returned on crucial issue no. 1 by the trial court concurred by the lower appellate court was vitiated for any misreading of evidence.
In the opinion of the Court, therefore, the findings of fact on the question of title and possession of suit land stands concluded by both the courts and does not warrant interference. No substantial question arises for consideration of this Court under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 IrfanUddin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether findings of trial and lower appellate courts on title and possession of suit land require interference under Section 100 CPC.
Whether absence of proof regarding lease documents and allotment proceedings vitiated the concurrent finding that plaintiffs could not prove their case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay And 5 Others
Beni Ram And Others
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
