Dismissed

Kunwar Pal v. Mangat and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2020SAPL/1114/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal No. 1114 of 2017 dismissed by the Hon'ble Court No. 53. The court held that the lower courts' concurrent findings of fact against the appellant regarding his failure to prove title, possession, and ownership did not warrant interference, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the lower courts' judgments were upheld.

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 1114 of 2017

¶3

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

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

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

¶6

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. 17 of 2017 (Kuwar Pal 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. 372 of 2013.

¶7

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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

of possession has been recorded in favour of the plaintiff.

¶11

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.

¶12

Therefore, appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.2.2020 Vikram/-

Kunwar Pal v. Mangat and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunwar Pal v. Mangat and 2 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

Chandra Prakash and 4 Others Vs Ranveer Singh

Premwati and 3 Others Vs Ranveer Singh

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Suman and 3 Others

purnavasi and 8 others Vs jeorkkhan and 37 others

Jagdish Vs Mangat and 2 Others

Ompal Singh Vs Mangat and 2 Others