Dismissed

Sadasewak and Others v. Addil District Judge/ Fast Track Court. 14, Finance Commission, Hardoi and Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2024/62/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dismissed the second appeal filed by appellants challenging the dismissal of their suit for permanent injunction. The court held that appellants failed to prove title and possession on the disputed land and no substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed as it was misconceived and lacked merit.

Sadasewak and Others Vs Addil District Judge/ Fast… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26657

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 62 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Sadasewak And Others Respondent :- Addil District Judge/ Fast Track Court. 14, Finance Commission, Hardoi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶7

This second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2024 passed by Additional District Judge/ Fast Tract Court ( 14th Finance Commission), Hardoi in Civil Appeal No.14 of 2016 (Devi Deen and Others Vs. Gopal Singh and Others) and judgment and decree dated 17.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Fast Tract Court, Hardoi in Regular Suit No.205 of 1993 (Devi Deen and Others Vs. Gopal Singh and Others) by means of which the suit was dismissed with costs.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are in possession on the land in dispute which is a part of Gata No.221 since the time of their ancestors but on account of the hindrances created by the respondents the predecessor-ininterest of appellants Devi Deen had filed the regular suit for permanent injunction, in which the evidence was educed by the parties and the respondent could not prove their case and the possession on the land in dispute, whereas the appellants are in possession on the land in dispute but without considering the same the suit was dismissed. He further submits that the learned trial court has failed to consider the Commission Report as well as Survey Commission conduced before the trial court. Being

¶9

aggrieved the appellants had filed the civil appeal which has also been dismissed without considering the grounds raised by the appellants and material on record, therefore the appellants are before this Court.

¶10

On the basis of above, the submission is that since the respondents have failed to prove their title and possession on the land in dispute, therefore the appellants are entitled for permanent injunction on the land in dispute. He relies on a coordinate bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rekhai and Another Vs. Kauleshar and Another; 1983 (9) ALR 81 .

¶11

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the documents placed on record of this second appeal.

¶12

The predecessor-in-interest of appellants namely Devi Deen had filed Regular Suit No.205 of 1993 for permanent injunction claiming the title and possession on the land in dispute on the basis of possession since the time of their ancestors and accordingly the settlement of the land in dispute in favour of the appellants after zamindari abolition. The evidence of wife of Devi Deen, his son and one independent witness was adduced as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3.

¶13

PW-1, Smt. Jai Devi, though supported the case of the plaintiff in examination-in-chief but in cross examination she admitted that the name of her husband was Devi Deen, who was son of Medhai, who had two sons Devi Deen and Matru. Medhai had only one house in Gram- Sutena, which is in the west of the land in dispute and 5-6 houses away. Ram Bux Singh used to live in her neighbour. The house in which she is residing has been constructed by Devi Deen, who died at the age of 70 years. The house was got by her husband from Ram

¶14

Bux Singh, who was Thakur and he has died. She further admitted that she had no document relating ownership and the possession on the land in dispute nor it was with the ancestors. She also admitted that her husband had not got executed any sale deed from Ram Bux Singh. Though she stated that the land in dispute is recorded in the name of her husband Devi Deen and father-in-law Medhai in the revenue records but no such documents was placed on record despite it was said in her statement that she will produce it on the next date.

¶15

PW-2, Banwari, who was son of Devi Deen also admitted that he does not know as to from whom the land in dispute was purchased by his father Devi Deen and as to how he got it. He has further stated that he could not get any document regarding ownership of the land in dispute after death of his father.

¶16

PW-3, Ram Kumar, who is an independent witness also stated that the trees of eucalyptus on the land in dispute have not been planted by Devi Deen. He also stated that he does not no as to who is the owner of the land in dispute. One fact has also been stated by him in the suggestion that Param is religious man and he did not want to give the false evidence therefore he has not come. On a query being put to the learned counsel for the appellants, he admitted that Param was not produced as witness.

¶17

In view of above, the appellants could not prove the title and possession on the land in dispute. Though the defence witnesses could not give the number of the house in which the appellants alleged to were residing but that can not give any benefit to the appellants as the appellants have to prove the case on their own and have to stand on their own legs. They are not entitled for any benefit of discrepancies of respondents.

¶18

The case of the appellants is that they are in possession since the time of their ancestors and after zamindari abolition the same has been settled in their favour, but it could not be proved as discussed above.

¶19

The appellate court also after considering the grounds raised by the appellants and the material on records found that the appellants have failed to prove the title and possession on the land in dispute.

¶20

The appellate court has also noticed that the Survey Commission Report in regard to the claim of the appellants that the land in dispute is part of the Gata No.221 has been rejected by the trial court by means of the order dated 29.01.1995, therefore the claim of the appellants on the basis of the said report is also not tenable.

¶21

So far as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, the same is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the instant case and distinguishable on the facts.

¶22

In view of above and considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises in the case. The appeal is misconceived and lacks merit.

¶23

The second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶24

...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 1.4.2024 Haseen U.

¶26

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

Sadasewak and Others v. Addil District Judge/ Fast Track Court. 14, Finance Commission, Hardoi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadasewak and Others v. Addil District Judge/ Fast Track Court. 14, Finance Commission, Hardoi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

National Highway Authority of India Thru Project Director Piu Lucknow vs Babadeen and Anr.

Qamar Ahmad and Another vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Divisional Manager,Divisional OFFICE-2, Lko. and 2 Others

National Highways Authority of India Thru Project Director Piu Lucknow vs Smt. Raanjeeta Vishwakarma and Anr.

Sadasewak and Others vs Addil District Judge/ Fast Track Court. 14, Finance Commission, Hardoi and Others

Smt. Suman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikash Sachivalaya U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Firoz Ahmad @ Sanjay Miyan Vs Union of India through Its General Manager Northern Railway