Review application challenging the dismissal of a property suit was dismissed. The court held the appellate court correctly identified the disputed land based on evidence and revenue records, finding no error apparent on the face of the record.
Review application dismissed as misconceived and lacking merit.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28210
Court No. - 5
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 40 of 2024
Applicant :- Jasveer Singh And Others Opposite Party :- Raja Ram Counsel for Applicant :- Avadhesh Kumar
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
"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.
8. 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.
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."
...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 8.4.2024 Haseen U.
Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate court erred in finding the disputed land identifiable despite the trial court's opposite finding.
Jasveer Singh And Others
Rajnish Kumar
Haseenuddin
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
