Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Jagdish Vs Mangat and 2 Others — Partition | Allahabad HC (2020)

Home
Allahabad HC
2020
Jagdish Vs Mangat and 2 OthersJagdish v. Mangat and 2 Others

Dismissed

Jagdish v. Mangat and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2020SAPL/1112/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The second appeal was dismissed as the appellant-failed to prove title, possession, and had failed to establish his own case under the law.

What the court decided

AI extract

A

Court No. - 53

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 1112 of 2017

Appellant :- Jagdish Respondent :- Mangat And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Pratap Singh Raghav Counsel for Respondent :- Raj Kumar Kesari,Gulab Chandra

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri A.P.S. Raghav, learned counsel for the appellantplaintiff and Sri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent.

This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 29.09.2017 passed by learned District Judge, Hapur in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017 (Jagdish vs. Mangat and 2 others). This appeal was filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 02.02.2017 passed by Court of Civil Judge (Senior Devision)II, Hapur dismissing the Original Suit No. 373 of 2013.

Plaintiff had filed a suit claiming that he is the owner and possessor of the property shown in the suit map and marked as A, B, C and D being part of survey no. 274 measuring 300 square yard situated at Village Nangla Kashi, Tehsil Dhaulana, District Hapur.

It is the case of the plaintiff that father of respondent no. 1 and husband of respondent no. 2- Sheonath was the owner of land contained in survey no. 274. Sheonath on 19.11.1984 had transferred this land in front of the panch from village for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and other villagers namely, Mahendra s/o Jaipal, Ompal s/o Jasraj and Jagdish s/o Raasti Singh and had handed over the possession to them. However, it is an admitted fact that Sheonath or his successors have never executed a sale deed in relation to such property.

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the second appeal should be allowed when the appellant failed to prove title, possession, and the case.
2.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the failure of the plaintiff warrant interference.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Jagdish
respondent
Mangat

Coram

AI extract

Vivek Agarwal

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Allahabad HC
Decided on: 18 Feb 2020 · February
Registered: 7 Nov 2017
Case no.: SAPL/1112/2017

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Vivek Agarwal

Chandra Prakash and 4 Others Vs Ranveer Singh
14 Feb 2020
Premwati and 3 Others Vs Ranveer Singh
14 Feb 2020
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Suman and 3 Others
14 Feb 2020
purnavasi and 8 others Vs jeorkkhan and 37 others
18 Feb 2020

Cite this judgement

Jagdish v. Mangat and 2 Others, SAPL/1112/2017 (ALL), decided on 18 February 2020.

The Allahabad High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

Vivek Agarwal

Parties & counsel

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the second appeal should be allowed when the appellant failed to prove title, possession, and the case. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The appellant, claiming ownership of land based on a transfer without a sale deed, was unable to prove title or possession. The appeal failed as the courts below had correctly recorded concurrent findings of fact regarding the insufficiency of the plaintiff's case, thus calling for no interference.

A compact analysis

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.

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the discussion made by learned First Appellate Court on internal page-10 of the judgment referring to some amin report annexure-19Ga to bring home a point that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and even if they are not having title over the property, they cannot be dispossessed from the suit property without following the due process as prescribed in law. However, a bare perusal of the judgment reveals that no finding of possession has been recorded in favour of the plaintiff.

In view of such facts when plaintiff has failed to prove his own case and has failed to prove his possession besides having failed to prove his title, impugned judgments passed by the two courts below regarding concurrent findings of fact, do not call for any interference.

Therefore, appeal fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.2.2020 Vikram/-

CNR

UPHC010411992017

Topic

Bench

Disposal

Dismissed on merits

Ompal Singh Vs Mangat and 2 Others

18 Feb 2020

Kunwar Pal Vs Mangat and 2 Others

18 Feb 2020