Dismissed¶13

Jasveer Singh and 5 Others v. Raja Ram

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2024/40/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed; permanent injunction; ancestral Baggar land; Gata no.285, area 0.024 hectares, recorded Abadi; Sankramaniy Bhumidhar; identifiability of land in dispute; public way on western side; survey commission report confirmed after objections; revenue record; D.W.-2 admission; no substantial question of law; Additional District Judge Mohammadi Lakhimpur Kheri; Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Mohammadi; plaintiff's decree upheld; Rajnish Kumar, J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; order dated 27.2.2024.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no illegality or error in the findings recorded by the first appellate court and holds that no substantial question of law arises in the second appeal. ¶12

Jasveer Singh and 5 Others Vs Raja Ram — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 4 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 40 of 2024 Appellant :- Jasveer Singh And 5 Others Respondent :- Raja Ram Counsel for Appellant :- Avadhesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Nigam Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶2

Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Gaurav Nigam learned counsel for the respondent.

¶3

This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2018 passed in Civil Appeal no.02 of 2019 (Rajaram vs Rampal Singh and others) by Additional District Judge, Mohammadi outline court, Lakhimpur Kheri by means of which, the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2018 passed in Regular Suit no.160 of 2011, (Rajaram vs Rampal Singh) by Additional Civil Judge (J.D) Mohammadi, Lakhimpur Kheri has been set aside and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed.

¶4

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court as the land in dispute is not identifiable, whereas the appellate court without considering the same and recording erroneous and perverse findings has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff, which could not have been done. He further submits that there is no public way in front of Gata no.286, on which, the land in dispute is claimed to exist. There was no public way in the west of Gata no.285. Thus, the submission is that the judgment and order passed by the appellate court is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

¶5

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the trial court without examining material on record and evidence adduced by the respective parties had dismissed the suit in cursory manner recording the finding that the land in dispute is not identifiable, whereas the appellate court, after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by the parties and material on record, has allowed the appeal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the appellate order and no substantial question of law arises.

¶6

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the documents placed on record of this appeal.

¶7

The respondent/plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction claiming that the appellants are interfering into peaceful possession of the land in dispute, which is his ancestral

¶8

Baggar. The written statement was filed by the appellant/defendant denying the averments made in the plaint. The survey commission was conducted as directed by the trial court during the pendency of the suit. The trial court, after considering evidence of only the appellant and certain evidence on record held that the land in dispute is not identifiable but without considering the evidence of the appellant and survey commission report. The trial court on the basis of presumption has also recorded a finding that if the public way on the western side of land in dispute was existing and obstructed by the appellant/defendant, then the complaint would have been made and the action would have been taken by the competent authority.

¶9

The plaintiff/respondent had filed the civil appeal assailing the order passed by the trial court. The appellate court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed two points of determination, first of which was as to whether the appellant/plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. The second point of determination was as to whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for any relief.

¶10

Considering first point of determination, the appellate court, after considering the pleadings of the parties, evidence and material on record, recorded finding in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. While considering first point of determination, the appellate court has also considered the evidence of D.W-2, Digvindra Singh, who though supported the written statement but admitted that he has seen the Baggar of respondent/plaintiff, Rajaram and also gave the description of the land in dispute. He also stated that on the western side of the land in dispute, there is a way. On the west of that way, house of Rampal is situated. Gata number of land of Rampal is 304 and area 6 acre. He also stated that on the eastern side of the land of Rampal, there is a way and the number of the way is 286. He further stated that on the east of the way, Baggar of the Rajaram i.e. respondent/plaintiff is situated.

¶11

On examining the evidence adduced by the parties, the appellate court found that the same is in consonance with the revenue record and the respondent/plaintiff is the recorded Sankramaniy Bhumidhar of Gata no.285 area 0.024 hectares, which is recorded as Abadi of the respondent/plaintiff. The appellate court also found that the survey report, which has been confirmed after considering the objections, is also in consonance with the evidence adduced before the trial court. Accordingly, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction.

¶12

This Court does not find any illegality or error in the findings recorded by the appellate court and no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

¶13

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

(Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 27.2.2024/Harshita

¶16

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jasveer Singh and 5 Others v. Raja Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasveer Singh and 5 Others v. Raja Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

National Insurance Comp.Ltd.Hazratganj Lko.Thru Its R.M. Vs Smt.Nasrin and Ors.

Sahayak Kshetriya Prabandhak Lucknow City Transport Service Vs Shani Singh and Another

U.P.Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam Lko.Throu Regional Manager Vs Rama Kant Dwivedi and Another

Ram Dulare Vs Matadeen and Ors.

Nisha Gupta Vs Inam Ahmed and Others

Ram Gopal Mishra Vs Ram Pratap and 14 Others