Dismissed

ramesh chand yadav v. amita and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2018SAPL/78/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The second appellant, owner of a property, challenged the dismissal of his suit for permanent injunction against alleged encroachment. The court held that the appellant admitted in his own testimony that there was no encroachment on the public road or drain. Finding no substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit and no substantial question of law existed under Section 100 of the CPC.

ramesh chand yadav Vs amita and 3 Ors. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 78 of 2018 Appellant :- Ramesh Chand Yadav Respondent :- Amita And 3 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Mr Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- S.K. Garg,C.K.,C.K.Parekh,Gaurav Singh,Harish Chandra Mishra,Virendra Singh,S.K. Garg

¶3

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶4

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017 and 04.12.2017, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Meerut in Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2013 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2013 and 31.01.2013, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Meerut, in Original Suit No. 39 of 2009 (Ramesh Chand vs. Smt. Amita and others).

¶5

The plaintiff-appellant herein had filed a civil suit bearing Original Suit No. 39 of 2009 seeking relief in the nature of injunction as well as permanent prohibitory injunction in connection with the defendant-respondents who were intending to make encroachment upon the public road by developing a ramp and thereby they intended to cause obstruction in the public passage and flow of the drain water.

¶6

However, in view of Amin report, it was found that there was no encroachment on the public road inasmuch as there existed no ramp beyond the public drain. It has also come to be recorded in the testimony of the plaintiff-appellant himself that there is no encroachment on public road. It has also come on record that the defendantrespondents have not encroached the public drain and there is no stoppage to the flow of the drain water from the house of the plaintiff-appellant.

¶7

In view of the above admission so made by the plaintiff-appellant himself in his testimony, the trial court has recorded the finding that no cause of action arose to maintain the suit. The lower

¶8

appellate court has affirmed the finding so recorded by the trial court.

¶9

However, counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial court has not considered the controversy in its real perspective that the encroachment is there. On repeated query being made to the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant as to how the findings recorded by the trial court is perverse as based on misreading of evidence, counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate anything so as to call for any interference and to frame any substantial question of law. Therefore, I do not find any reason sufficient enough or any convincing argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant to take any different view from the one that has been taken by the court below. The findings of fact stand concluded by the concurrent judgments of courts below and there arises no substantial question of law to be decided in this appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶10

Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 22.10.2018 sailesh

ramesh chand yadav v. amita and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

ramesh chand yadav v. amita and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Julekha Vs Jogendra Pal Singh

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Abhishek Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Balwant Singh (Deceased) and 4 Others Vs Shanti Prakash (Deceased) and 6 Others

Keshav Nath Vs Mukti Narayan Chaturvedi

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Brijesh Kumar and Another