Santosh Anand Srivastava v. Sunita and Others

Court No. - 6

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 141 of 2024

Appellant :- Santosh Anand Srivastava Respondent :- Sunita And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Surya Mani Pandey,Devi Charan Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- Anit Vishal Srivastav

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

Objection filed by learned counsel for the respondents-Caveator is taken on record.

Heard, Shri Surya Mani Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anit Vishal Srivastav, learned counsel for the respondents-Caveator.

Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.03.2024 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.201 of 2015; Smt.Siyawati (deceased) and others Versus Santosh Anand Srivastava, under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code passed by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow submits that the Suit for permanent injunction and for cancellation of gift deed was filed by the legal heirs of donor, whereas they had no right to file the suit once the valid gift deed was executed by the donor and the same was accepted by the donee i.e. the appellant/defendant.

He further submits that even if as per amendment made in the Suit at the appellate stage to the effect that the donor Jairam was a member of Scheduled Caste category and he could not have transferred the land in dispute without permission of the District Magistrate, therefore it was in violation of Section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950, the gift deed could not have been cancelled and in view of gift deed executed in contravention of the provisions of the Act it is void under Section 166 of the Act and the consequences as given under Section 167 of the Act would follow and accordingly the subject matter of transfer i.e. the land in dispute w.e.f. the date of transfer would be deemed to have been vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Thus it cannot revert back to the donor or his legal heirs i.e. the respondents. Therefore the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable in the eyes of law.