The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's second appeal against the dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction regarding property possession. The court found no illegality in the lower courts' findings based on revenue records and evidence, deeming the appeal without substantial question of law.
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. - 4
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 105 of 2022
Appellant :- Naresh And 21 Others Respondent :- Ashok And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Sajiwan Mishra,Chandra Bhan Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- Raj Kumar Dhama
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Baghpat dismissing the Original Suit No.637 of 1999 as well as against the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2021/08.12.2021 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baghpat in Civil Appeal No.31 of 2017 affirming the decree passed by the trial court.
The plaitiffs instituted Original Suit No.637 of 1999 for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant-respondents regarding a part of plot No.738 (the total area of which is .065 hectares). The defendants contested the case of the plaintiffs pleading their possession over the suit property on the basis of a sale deed dated 14.08.1970 executed in favour of their father, one Sri Jaipal Singh, by the plaintiff no.1. The plaintiffs claimed their possession over the suit property and in the alternative claimed title on the basis of adverse possession. The plaintiffs also alleged that sale deed dated 14.08.1970 was void in view of Section 168-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The execution of the sale deed dated 14.08.1970 was admitted by the plaintiffs in their plaint. The plea of the plaintiffs that the sale deed was void by virtue of Section 168-A of the Act, 1950,
has been rejected by the courts below on the ground that the aforesaid plea does not help the plaintiffs, inasmuch as, if the document was void because of Section 168-A of the Act, 1950, then the property which was the subject matter of the sale deed would, under Section 167 of the Act, 1950, vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and does not confer any right on the plaintiffs.
Regarding possession, the courts below after considering the revenue records, the Amin Report and the testimony of different witnesses, have recorded a finding that the defendants were in possession of the suit property. On the aforesaid findings, the suit and the consequential appeal of the plaintiffs have been dismissed.
There is no illegality in the findings of the courts below, which are based on evidence on record and are concurrent findings of the courts.
No substantial question of law arises in the present case.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.3.2022 Ashutosh
Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH SINGH Date: 2022.03.24 17:51:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether any substantial question of law arises in this second appeal regarding the dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction.
Naresh And 21 Others
Ashok And 3 Others
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
