Apple admits a second appeal regarding a suit disputed as time barred. Substantial questions of law concerning limitation and readiness/willingness evidence are framed. Court issues notice and waits for lower court record.
Admission of appeal with framing of substantial questions of law and procedural steps.
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.
Court No. - 5
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 106 of 2024
Appellant :- Lalta Prasad Respondent :- Devi Rani Ghosh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Zainul Abdin Ansari,Mohd. Hayan Hasan
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Zainul Abdin Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the case for declaration of title under Section 229 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 was pending against the predecessor- ininterest of the respondent, who had executed the agreement to sale deed in regard to the land in question, it cannot be said that the suit filed after coming to know about the disposal of the said suit was time barred because unless the said suit was decided and the information of the same was given to the appellant, the sale deed could not have been got executed. He further submits that the appellant was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed therefore he had given notice on 21.08.1998 and 29.07.2004 and had also purchased the stamp on 28.01.1991.However, learned court's below have failed to consider the same and dismissed the suit and appeal.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
"(i)Whether the suit can be said to be time barred in absence of information of the disposal of the case in favour of the predecessor-ininterest of the respondent no.1, without which he could not have executed the sale deed and upon information of which, the suit was filed?
(ii)Whether the learned courts below have erred in law in not considering the evidence adduced by the appellant in regard to readiness and willingness of the appellant to get the sale deed executed? If so, it's effect.
Issue notice.
Summon the lower court record.
Steps to be taken within a week.
List after receipt of the lower court record.
Order Date :- 21.5.2024 Akanksha Sri.
Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit is time barred due to lack of information regarding the predecessor's pending declaration suit?
Whether the learned courts below erred in not considering evidence of the appellant's readiness and willingness?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lalta Prasad
Devi Rani Ghosh And Others
Rajnish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
