Second appeal against dismissal of a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction regarding adverse possession. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises as the appellants failed to appear and prove possession or documents.
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. - 216 of 2022 Appellant :- Bindhyachal And 11 Others Respondent :- Mahesh Kumar Kanodiya And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Kumar Singh,Mahesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Tandon
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
This is plaintiffs'-appellants' second appeal against judgment and decree dated 26.10.2021 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar dismissing Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2016 (Bindhyachal and other vs. Mahesh Kumar Kanodiya and another) as well as against the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar dismissing Original Suit No. 496 of 1987 (Bindhyachal and other vs. Mahesh Kumar Kanodiya and another).
The original suit was instituted by the plaintiffs'-appellants' for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendantsrespondents claiming adverse possession over the suit property.
The claim of the plaintiffs'-appellants' has been rejected on the ground that the plaintiffs' had not specified the date from which they came in possession over the suit property and other ingredients to prove adverse possession were not made out.
The appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs'-appellants' has taken notice of the fact that the plaintiffs'-appellants' did not appear in the suit to prove the plaint averments or the documents filed by him.
In view of the facts that the plaintiffs-appellants' or any other person did not appear as witness to prove the plaint case and the documents filed by the plaintiffs'-appellants' are also not proved by the witness and the said documents by themselves do not prove adverse possession, therefore, no illegality was committed by the courts below in rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs'-appellants' and thereby dismissing the suit.
No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.3.2022/SY
Digitally signed by SWETA YADAV Date: 2022.03.11 15:05:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law arises on rejection of claim for adverse possession due to non-compliance in proof of specific date and lack of witness testimony.
Bindhyachal And 11 Others
Mahesh Kumar Kanodiya And Another
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
