The Single Bench, in Second Appeal No. 1113 of 2017, dismissed the appeal filed by Ompal Singh. The court held that the appellant failed to prove title, possession, or his case, making the concurrent findings of the lower courts immaterial for interference, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The Second Appeal was dismissed.
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. - 53
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 1113 of 2017
Appellant :- Ompal Singh 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. 16 of 2017 (Ompal Singh 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. 374 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.
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/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal demands interference when the plaintiff failed to prove title, possession, or their own case.
If the lower courts' concurrent findings of fact are unchallenged, should they be overturned?
Ompal Singh
Mangat and 2 Others
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
