Dismissed¶¶15

Jasveer Singh and Others v. Raja Ram

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2024/40/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application; error apparent on face of record; identifiability of disputed land; Gata no. 285; Sankramaniy Bhumidhar; Abadi; survey report; DW-2 Digvindra Singh; permanent injunction; Second Appeal No. 40 of 2024; order dated 27.02.2024; Civil Misc Review Application No. 40 of 2024; Jasveer Singh And Others v. Raja Ram; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Rajnish Kumar, J.; neutral citation 2024:AHC-LKO:28210; dismissed as misconceived.

What did the court decide?

The land in dispute was identifiable, supported by the evidence of DW-2 and the confirmed survey report, as found by the first appellate court on the material on record. ¶¶14

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28210

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 40 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jasveer Singh And Others Opposite Party :- Raja Ram Counsel for Applicant :- Avadhesh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

This review application has been filed for review of the judgment and order dated 27.02.2024 passed in Second Appeal No.40 of 2024.

¶7

Shri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the reviewapplicants submits that the land in dispute was not identifiable and a categorical finding has been recorded by the trial court but without considering the same the appellate court set-aside the order passed by the trial court and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiffs, which could not have been done. He further submits that this Court also, while passing the order dated 27.02.2024, has not considered the same, therefore there is error apparent on the face of the record, therefore the order is required to be reviewed.

¶8

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the review applicants, I have perused the documents placed on records of the second appeal and this review application.

¶9

This Court finds that the first appellate court, after considering the material on record and the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant by DW-2 and the revenue records found that the land in dispute is identifiable and allowed the appeal. This Court, after considering the findings recorded by the court's below and material on record, recorded the findings in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the order dated 27.02.2024, which are extracted here-in-below:-

¶10

"7. 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.

¶11

8. Considering first point of determination, the appellate court, after considering the pleadings of the parties, evidence and material on record,

¶12

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.

¶13

9. 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."

¶14

In view of above, it is apparent that the land in dispute was identifiable and it was supported by evidence of DW-2 and survey report confirmed and this Court is of the view that the order has been passed after considering the material placed on records and the arguments advanced before this Court and there is no error apparent on the face of record, which may call for review of the order.

¶15

This review application is misconceived and lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶16

...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 8.4.2024 Haseen U.

¶17

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

Jasveer Singh and Others v. Raja Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasveer Singh and 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

Anil Kumar and Co. Thru. Authorized Representative vs U.P. Rajkiye Nirman Nigam Thru. M.D.

National Highways Authority of India Thru Project Director Piu Lucknow vs Roop Chandra Jaisawal and Others

Smt. Jaikora and 9 Others Vs Smt. Shiv Pyari and 2 Others

Sri Thakur Sanatan Ram Yugal Sarkar Virajman Mandir Faizabad Vs Kusum Dasi Chelin Sri Lalita Das

Syed Ameer Sardar @ Raje and Another Vs Aqeel Abbas

Jasveer Singh and Others vs Raja Ram