Dismissed

Adalat v. Rahman and Another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2020SAPL/370/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff in a property dispute involving a suit for cancellation of a sale deed. The lower courts held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a Panchayatnama due to inconsistencies in witness depositions and ambiguities in the evidence. This court found no ambiguity in the impugned judgment and held that no interference wa

What the court decided

AI extract

Adalat Vs Rahman and Another — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 370 of 2017

¶3

Appellant :- Adalat Respondent :- Rahman And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjeev Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Nand Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶6

This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2016 and decree dated 16.12.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No.19 of 2016 (Adalat Vs. Rahman and another) by the Court of learned Additional District Judge Court No.6 Deoria and the Judgment and order dated 30.04.2010 in Suit No.2001 of 2002 (Adalat vs. Rahman and another) by the Court of Additional Civil Judge Court N.25 Deoria.

¶7

It is an admitted fact that plaintiff had filed a suit seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 11.11.1999 on the basis of Panchayatnama dated 05.04.1983. It is a claim of the plaintiff that as per Panchayatnama, he had received western portion of the suit property whereas defendant No.1 Rahman was given eastern portion of the suit property but contrary to his own share Rahman sold western portion of the property in favour of defendant No.2 Kamla Tiwari.

¶8

Learned trial court has appreciated the evidence in detail and has considered the evidence as was led by the plaintiff No.1 to three witnesses P.W1, PW.2 and P.W3 and it has come to the finding that plaintiff could not prove Panchayatnama dated 05.04.1983 and therefore, dismissed the suit. Learned First Appellate Court has specifically referred that panchayatnama was recorded by one Ganesh Prasad Pandey, whereas plaintiff

¶9

witnesses deposed that it was written by Zamil. Learned first appellate court has also noted such and other several ambiguities in the evidence and appeal was dismissed on the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove his own case.

¶10

After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, who is initially put for the case that suit was dismissed on the basis of the ambiguity in the dates of the sale deed and later on admits that suit was not dismissed on the basis of any ambiguity for sale deed. On appreciation of the finding, which has come on record, this court is of the opinion that there is no ambiguity and illegality in the impugned judgement, which has been passed after due appreciation of the evidence holding that plaintiff had failed to prove his case calling for any interference. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court no substantial question of law appears to be made out.

¶11

Consequently, appeal fails and dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 6.2.2020 Pr/-

Adalat v. Rahman and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Adalat v. Rahman and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagawat Deceased Beer Pal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Collector Ghaziabad and Another

Manoj Kumar Vs Smt. Kunti Devi

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs Jhabban Singh and 6 Ors.

Dropa Devi and 2 Others Vs Om Prakash Sharma and 6 Others

Smt. Neelu Devi Vs Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors.

Smt. Sheetal and 3 Others Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Mathura and 2 Others