Dismissed

Sarvjeet v. Anand Kumar and 4 Others

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2019A227/654/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order of the District Judge, Kushinagar, which allowed a miscellaneous appeal regarding land share disputes based on a compromise reached in consolidation proceedings. The High Court, after reviewing the submissions on the validity of the compromise, held the petition unmeritorious and dismissed it without interfering in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The petition filed under Article 227 to set aside the order of the District Judge was dismissed.

Sarvjeet Vs Anand Kumar and 4 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 654 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sarvjeet Respondent :- Anand Kumar And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Misra,Sushil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Himanshu Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Himanshu Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶6

Affidavit filed today on behalf of the contesting respondent nos. 1 and 2 is taken on record.

¶7

Present petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by District Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2018 (Yogendra and others vs. Sarvjeet).

¶8

By the impugned order the misc. appeal filed by the defendantrespondent has been allowed. The plaintiff-petitioner has come forward to challenge the same. The interim injunction application filed by the plaintiff was allowed and interim injunction dated 25.9.2018 was granted in favour of the plaintiff. The misc. appeal filed by the respondent was partly allowed and interim injunction was modified to the extent that in view of the compromise dated 27.11.1979 passed in consolidation proceedings no. 1856-1874 entered into between the parties before the consolidation officer the defendants were found entitled to the extent of share of 40 decimal in the arazi no. 411 area 70 decimal and balance area 30 decimal had gone to the plaintiff and defendant 2nd set, hence on the basis of this compromise interim injunction was modified.

¶9

Challenging the same submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court has not considered the aforesaid compromise and passed the order. Submission is that the lower appellate court without appreciating the surveyor report, who was appointed by the trial court, passed the order.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent while drawing attention to the compromise has submitted that the same has been discussed in detailed by the lower appellate court and accordingly interim injunction was modified.

¶11

I have considered the submissions and have perused the record.

¶12

It appears that challenging the compromise before the appellate

¶13

court it was stated that the compromise was not read out to the defendants and their signatures were obtained.

¶14

At this stage, on this ground alone when prima facie existence of compromise is not disputed, I am not inclined to interfere in the order impugned herein.

¶15

Present petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Lalit Shukla

Sarvjeet v. Anand Kumar and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvjeet v. Anand Kumar and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyavati and 3 Others Vs the Additional District Judge Vth District Etah and 2 Others

Finance or Account Officer Vs Ganesh Prasad Dwivedi and 2 Others

Shameem Ahmad @ Shama Vs Nadeem Ahmad and 2 Others

Waqf Haji Syed Meer Niyaz Ali Rizvi Vs Smt. Angoori Devi and 4 Others

Ram Vilas Yadav and Another Vs Amit Kishore, D.M., and Another

Seema Dubey Vs Rajendra Singh, District Basic Education Officer