Allowed

Shivjeet v. Rampreet

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2022SAPL/257/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a suit for permanent injunction over ancestral property, this single-judge bench allowed the appeal, set aside the first appellate court's order granting partial relief and partition, and restored the trial court's decree dismissing the suit, holding that the lower court failed to record evidence or follow precedent in reversing its order. The appellate court granted r

What did the court decide?

Second appeal allowed; judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court set aside; judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit restored.

Shivjeet Vs Rampreet — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Reserved on 27.10.2021 Delivered on 21.01.2022

¶2

In Chamber

¶3

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 257 of 2010

¶4

Appellant :- Shivjeet Respondent :- Rampreet Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Chaddha, ,Arvind Kumar SinghIi,Dinesh Kumar Singh,Prashant Pratap Rao Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Shukla,Hari Pratap Gupta,K.P. Tewari,Murli Dhar Mishra,S.N. Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Murli Dhar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶7

The present second appeal has been filed by defendant-appellant to set aside judgement and decree dated 10.02.2010 passed by District Judge, Gorakhpur in Civil Appeal No.1 of 2010 (Rampreet vs. Shivjeet) arising out of dismissal of suit of plaintiff-respondent.

¶8

Suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent. In suit it was pleaded that property in dispute situate in village and post Barhgahan Tappa-Reh, Pargana Bhawapar, Tehsil Sahajanwa, District Gorakphur. Property in dispute is ancestral property and defendant is parcener of the property. On 13.02.1988, a compromise amongs the family members brought out that towards north side of the pakka nala, property would go to defendant and towards south side of pakka nala where property in dispute at present situate, would go to plaintiff. On that settlement disputed property shown as Ka, Kha, Ga & Gha in plaint came in the share of the plaintiff and plaintiff had established nad, Khuta and chappar and defendant-appellant Shivjeet had no concerned with the property in dispute. In support of the pleadings, the plaintiff filed following documents:-

¶9

¶10

3.2.88 फर्द सबूत का० सं० �सबूत का० सं० का० सं० सं० सं० 46/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० द्वारासुलहनामादिर्द सबूत का ० की मूल का० सं० मूलका० सं० सं० सं० 47/क, रदि�स्ट्री मूल का० सं० कार्य ा �लर्यामें दी गयी शिकायत पत्र की रसीद का० सं० र्द सबूत का० सं० ी मूल का० सं० ग द्वा र ा सुलहनामा दि० ी मूल का० सं० दि�कार्यात का० सं० पत का० सं० ्रकी मूल का० सं० रसी मूल का० सं० र्द सबूत का० सं० का० सं० सं० सं० 48/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० , प्रार्थ�ना पत का० सं० ्ररदि�स्टारग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० ोरखपुरकी मूल का० सं० प्रदित का० सं० का० सं० सं० सं० 49/ ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० एवंफर्द सबूत का० सं० �सूची मूल का० सं० 282/ ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० द्वारानकल दिनर्ण�र्याआर्द सबूत का० सं० े�दिर्द सबूत का ० 1.5.82 कदिमश्नरग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० ोरखपुरअपी मू ल सं० सं० 742//606/�ी मूल का० सं० सन् 1981 का० सं० सं० सं० 3/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० , अपरआर्याुक्त का० सं० अपी मू ल सं० सं० 501/742/606/�ी मूल का० सं० - 1981 आर्द सबूत का० सं० े�दिर्द सबूत का ० सं० एक मई 1982 सत्र्याप्रदित का० सं० दिलदिपका० सं० सं० सं० 283/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० , अपरआर्याुक्त का० सं० आर्द सबूत का० सं० े�दिर्द सबूत का० सं० नांदिकत का० सं० 8.5.79 सत्र्याप्रदित का० सं० दिलपका० सं० सं० सं० 284/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० , ग द ् वा र ा सुलहनामा दि० ामडोहदिरर्य ा केसर्द स बूत का० सं० र्याों की रजिस्टर छायाप्रतिकी मूल का० सं० रदि�स्टरछार्य ा प्रदित का० सं० का० सं० सं० सं० 285/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० , �ेष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक गोरखपुर को प्रेषित रजिस्ट्री रसीद का०पुदिलसअधी मूल क ा० सं० कग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० ोरखपुरकोप्रेदि3त का० सं० रदि�स्ट्री मूल का० सं० रसी मूल का० सं० र्द सबूत का० सं० का० सं० सं० सं० 286/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० , वप्रार्थ�नापत का० सं० ्रकां० सं० सं० सं० 287/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० , ग द ् वा र ा सुलहनामा दि० ाम- प्रधानबड़ग द्वारा सुल ह नामा दि० नप्रमार्णपत का० सं० ्र दिर्द सबूत का० सं० नांक 11.07.05 का० सं० सं० सं० 288/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० , प्रमार्णपत का० सं० ्रग द ् वा र ा सुलहनामा दि० ामबड़ग द्वारा सुल ह नामा दि० नदिर्द सबूत का ० सं० 14.3.05 ग द ् वा र ा सुलहनामा दि० ाम प्रधानका० सं० सं० सं० 289/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० , दिनवासप्रमार्णपत का० सं० ्रग द ् वा र ा सुलहनामा दि० ामडोहदिरर्य ा दिर्द सबूत का ० 1.6.99 का० सं० सं० सं० 290/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० , फोटोका० सं० सं० सं० 291/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० , त क ा ० सं० 291/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० /5 र्द सबूत क ा ० सं० दिखलदिकर्य ा ग द्वा र ा सुलहनामा दि० ाहै तथा मौखिकत का० सं० र्थामौदिखक साक्षर्याकेरूपमें दी गयी शिकायत पत्र की रसीद का० सं० रामप्री मूल का० सं० त का० सं० वार्द सबूत का० सं० ी मूल का० सं० बत का० सं० ौरपी मूल का ० डब्लू-1, पी मूल का ० डब्लू-2 रामर्द सबूत का० सं० रस, पी मूल का ० डब्लू-3 मुरारी मूल का० सं० र्य ा र्द सबूत का० सं० व, पी मूल का ० सं० डब्लू-4 रामअवधपाण्डेर्याकोमौदिखकसाक्षर्याकेरूपमें दी गयी शिकायत पत्र की रसीद का० सं० परी मूल का० सं० दिक्षत का० सं० करार्य ा ग द्वा र ा सुलहनामा दि० ाहै तथा मौखिक।

¶11

Notice was issued to defendant.

¶12

Defendant filed written statement/objection alleged therein that plaintiff had no title or right to file suit for permanent injunction as the disputed property shown in the plaint as Ka, Kha, Ga & Gha was the property which had been purchased from Gutki, wife of late Ramroop by registered sale deed dated 30.08.1974 and defendant had title and possession over the property in dispute shown in the plaint as Ka, Kha, Ga & Gha and defendant had established Nad, khuta and planted trees there. He further pleaded that plaintiff had not filed any pedigree from where he has got title or possession over the property in dispute. The plaint of the plaintiff is frivolous and not supporting the documents. In support of the contents/pleadings, the defendant filed following documentary evidence before the trial court:-

¶13

“फर्द सबूत का० सं० �सबूत का० सं० 96/ ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० द्वारानकलर्द स बूत का० सं० त क ा ० सं० वे�बै तथा मौखिकनामादिर्द सबूत का ० 3-8-1977 का० सं० सं० सं० 97/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० , फर्द सबूत का० सं० � सबूत का० सं० सूची मूल का० सं० 133/ ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० द्वाराअसलइकरारनामादिर्द सबूत का ० सं० 13-2-88 का० स ं० ं० सं० 134/क, त का० सं० र्थाफर्द सबूत का० सं० � सूची मूल का० सं० 202/ ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० द्वारानकलखत का० सं० ौनी मूल का० सं० मौ�ा�म्भूकसेमरादिर्द सबूत का ० सं० 3-4-78 का० स ं० ं० सं० 203/ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० ,

¶14

¶15

त का० सं० र्थानकलखत का० सं० ौनी मूल का० सं० मौ�ा- बंडग द्वारा सुल ह नामा दि० नदिर्द सबूत का ० सं० 2-3-78 का० स ं० ं० सं० 204/ ग द्वारा सुलहनामा दि० र्द सबूत क ा ० सं० दिखलदिकर्य ा ग द्वा र ा सुलहनामा दि० ा है तथा मौखिकत का० सं० र्थामौदिखकसाक्षर्याकेरूपमें दी गयी शिकायत पत्र की रसीद का० सं० कान्त क ा ० सं० र्य ा र्द सबूत का० सं० वकोबत का० सं० ौरडी मूल का ० सं० डब्लू-1, दि�व�ी मूल का० सं० त का० सं० को बत का० सं० ौरडी मूल का ० सं० डब्लू-2, रामकुँवरदिसंहकोबत का० सं० ौरडी मूल का ० सं० डब्लू-3 केरूपमें दी गयी शिकायत पत्र की रसीद का० सं० परी मूल का० सं० दिक्षत का० सं० करार्य ” ग द्वा र ा सुलहनामा दि० ाहै तथा मौखिक।

¶16

Trial court framed five issues. Issue no.1 was important for adjudication of the present dispute. While discussing issue no.1, trial court found that plaintiff could not prove his title over the property in dispute. While discussing material evidence available on record, trial court reached to the conclusion that plaintiff could not produced documentary evidence as well as oral evidence that the plaintiff had title and possession over the property in dispute marked as Ka, Kha, Ga & Gha in the plaint. Trial Court also held that burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove his case that he was in possession over the property in dispute and title was in their favour. Plaintiff had also pleaded that sale deed on behalf of the defendant-appellant, which was basis of a title and possession over the property in dispute, was marked as 97/c in the plaint, was forged and fabricated document and which was required to prove, as provided under section 90-A of the Evidence Act. Trial court had considered objection of the plaintiff and came to the conclusion that sale deed marked as Paper No.97-C executed in favour of the defendant by Gutki, wife of deceased Ramroop, is a document older than thirty years, as such, Section 90-A of the Evidence Act is not attracted. They further observed that though the defendant did not claim the cause of sale deed in his favour, it shall not be overlooked that the burden of proving his case is on the plaintiff. Plaintiff unabled to prove his case that he was in possession over the property in dispute and title was in their favour.

¶17

Trial court while deciding the plaint of the plaintiff, considered the pedigree filed by the defendant, pedigree has not been disputed by the plaintiff. The pedigree is being given as under:-

¶18

¶19

Jaddu
Vansh Raj Guptar Raghunath
Shivshankar Lagan
Sukh Narayan
RamLakhan Ramroop Ramdoop
(Died) (Died)
Ramjeet Shivjeet Rampreet Ghutki(widow)
(Plaintiff)

¶20

From the pedigree, it is clear that defendant and plaintiff had one third share in overall property inherited by them. Gutki, who is wife of Ramroop obtained title and ownership after death of Ramroop and had sold the property to defendant. The trial court on various other considerations and pleadings of the defendant-plaintiff, dismissed the plaint of the plaintiff.

¶21

Plaintiff being aggrieved against the order passed by trial court filed First Appeal before the District Judge, Gorakhpur. The Appellate Court considered question No.1 whether appellant is owner in possession of the disputed property shown with letter Ka, Kha, Ga & Gha in the plaint map. The trial court has held that in my opinion, in view of the fact that agricultural land allegedly sold by Smt.Gutki having partitioned among the parties, this disputed land should be equally divided between two sides, therefore, in my opinion, plaintiff-appellant is owner in possession of eastern half of the disputed land shown with letters Ka, Kha, Ga & Gha and he is entitled to permanent injunction in respect thereof. This point is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and allow the appeal partly and partly dismissed.

¶22

¶23

Defendant/appellant has filed present second appeal before this Court. Appeal of the defendant-appellant has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

¶24

A. Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in allowing the appeal without reversing and setting aside the finding of the trial court?

¶25

B. Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in granting the relief of partition without there being any such prayer.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the trial court.

¶27

On perusal of order passed by the Appellate Court dated 10.02.2010, it is clear that the First Appellate Court without giving any reason, without discussing the evidence produced by plaintiff and defendant during the trial and without reversing and setting aside the finding given by the trial court allowed the appeal and has given finding that land sold by Smt.Gutki having partitioned between plaintiff defendant based upon no evidence.

¶28

The pleadings of the plaintiff-respondent is that on the basis of compromise deed, which is not registered document, disputed property has shown as Ka, Kha, Ga & Gha in the plaint, has come to his share and he has installed Nad, Khuta and Chappar but he has not produced any document in regard how he has got share of Smt.Gutki and has got title and possession over the disputed property. This court finds that plaintiff-respondent in his plaint as well as examination-in-chief had taken only one ground to claim injunction in his favour was family partition by which he claimed share from the south side of the pakki nali and defendant got share from the north side of pakki nali. The plaintiff has not filed any pedigree and has not said in the plaint how he has got right over the property in dispute. He has not demarcated area of disputed property over which he had sought injunction. The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his case as well as Sections 102 & 103 of the Evidence Act provides that the burden of prove as to any particular fact lies on that person, who wishes the court to believe in its

¶29

¶30

existence. Since the plaintiff/respondent had asserted the fact of sole ownership of property Ka, Kha, Ga & Gha, Sections 102 & 103 of the Evidence Act extend burden upon plaintiff-respondent to prove the particular fact of the case is that having title and possession over the property in dispute and earlier who was the owner of the property and how the plaintiff has got the property on account of family partition.

¶31

The lower Appellate Court committed illegality by holding that agricultural land allegedly sold by Smt.Gutki having partition among the parties, this disputed land should be equally divided between two sides, therefore, in my opinion, plaintiff-appellant is owner in possession of eastern half of the disputed land shown with letters Ka, Kha, Ga & Gha and he is entitled to permanent injunction in respect thereof.

¶32

Above-mentioned finding of the lower Appellate Court is not based on any documentary evidence or oral evidence, even no claim was made in the plaint to partitioned the agricultural land between the parties. On what evidence Appellate trial court has come to the conclusion that property purchased by the defendant from Smt.Gutki, should be partitioned among the parties, inspite no pleading in this regard in the plaint. Moroever, Appellate/trial court has not exercised his judicial mind and without any evidence or finding has considered the plaintiff share in the property of defendant, got by sale deed from Smt.Gutki without any basis or evidence, are liable to be set aside.

¶33

The findings recorded by the lower appellate court are not based upon any admissible evidence. Relevant piece of evidence have been ignored without any reason by the lower Appellate Court. The judgement is also against the pleadings for the reason that in the plaint no issue was to partition the land. In such scenario, findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court are liable to be set aside in second appeal.

¶34

It is clear from the record that Smt.Gutki w/o Ramroop sold her share to defendant appellant. Sale deed is personal property acquired by defendant. It could not be considered as property of compromise deed or family

¶35

¶36

settlement unless and until specific averments in this regard has been made in the deed. From perusal of deed, it is clear that there is no such averments regarding inclusion of Smt.Gutki’s property. Plaintiff defendant has made compromise deed regarding property inherited by their ancestors. There is no whisper in the settlement deed that contain the property of Smt.Gutki would also be part of the deed. Finding of the Appellate Court that sold property of Smt.Gutki should be partitioned among the parties is baseless and without any evidence.

¶37

From the evidence on record, it is proved that defendant appellant is recorded tenure holder in possession of the disputed property. The plaintiff/respondent has failed to prove that disputed land was acquired by him. The Appellate trial court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court. The finding recorded by the learned Appellate trial court on the issue framed are cryptic, without application of judicial mind.

¶38

Accordingly, both the substantial question of law are decided in favour of the appellant. Second appeal is allowed . Judgement and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is set aside and judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit is restored.

¶39

Order Date :- January 21, 2022 SKD

Shivjeet v. Rampreet

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivjeet v. Rampreet

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Machhla and 2 Other Vs State of U.P.

Naved Vs State of U.P and Another

Bhupendra Bahradwaj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raman Verma Vs State of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. and Another

Rehan @ Rihan Khan Vs State of U.P.

Nooruddin Vs State of U.P.