Dismissed

Harish Chandra Singh v. Mohd. Tariq

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024SAPL/151/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by a appellant challenging the dismissal of his suit for permanent injunction. The High Court found no illegality in the lower courts' judgment regarding the absence of a registered lease deed and the non-consideration of un-pleaded evidence.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and no order as to costs was passed.

Harish Chandra Singh vs Mohd. Tariq — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53771

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 151 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Harish Chandra Singh Respondent :- Mohd. Tariq Counsel for Appellant :- Basant Lal Yadav,Dileep Kumar Yadav,Shivam Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had filed suit for permanent injunction and the same has been decided exparte without considering the evidence adduced by the appellant. Therefore the appellant had filed the first appeal which has also been dismissed exparte without considering the evidence. Hence the appellant is before this Court in this Second Appeal.

¶8

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶9

The suit for permanent injunction was filed alleging that the appellant and the respondent had entered into unregistered agreement on 01.02.2006 for letting out shop to the appellant by the respondent for indefinite period. In pursuance thereof, the appellant is in possession of the shop as tenant and he is paying the rent regularly. In the month of January 2016, when the appellant approached to the respondent for the receipts then he said that he is not having the receipts and he would give it in the next month. Thereafter he had not taken the rent from January 2016 to April 2016. Thereafter on 18.05.2016, the appellant had sent the rent through money order, the receipt of which was filed. The same was returned on 20.05.2016. The respondent had asked the appellant to vacate the shop on 15.05.2016. Therefore the appellant had filed suit for permanent injunction. The suit had proceeded exparte, in which the appellant himself appeared as P.W.1 and one Vijay Yadav appeared as P.W.2. The appellant had also filed certain documentary evidences, which includes photocopy of agreement, identity card, copy of the gas connection, bank pass book, rashan card, electricity bills etc.

¶10

The trial court, after considering the pleadings of the appellant and evidence adduced before it found that the appellant has filed the photocopy of unregistered agreement, whereas as per Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act

¶11

1882, the lease of immovable property for any term exceeding 1 year can be made only by a registered instrument but no registered agreement has been placed on record. Proviso to Section 107 provides that the State Government may from time to time by notification in the official gazette, direct that leases of immovable property other than leases from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent or any class of such leases may be made by unregistered instrument or by oral agreement without delivery of possession but no such notification has been placed on record. Even otherwise, the appellant may not be entitled for the benefit of this proviso because the alleged agreement was with delivery of possession. The trial court also found that the appellant has not placed on record any proof of payment of rent to the respondent. Without any pleadings a plea was also taken by the P.W.2 that no receipt was being given for the rent given by the respondent and he got the signatures of the appellant without any proof.

¶12

In view of above, it is apparent that considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the appellant has also been considered and decided considering the pleadings of the appellant and the evidence. The appellate court also found that the compliance of Section 30 of Small Causes Court has not been pleaded, therefore the contrary evidence adduced at the appellate stage cannot be considered.

¶13

This Court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court. The appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

¶14

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 Akanksha Sri.

¶16

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

Harish Chandra Singh v. Mohd. Tariq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Chandra Singh v. Mohd. Tariq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Vidya Devi Vs Gayadeen

Mohd. Shafiq Vs Smt. Kamlesh and 4 Others

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

Omveer Singh and another vs Sufiyan and others

Lalta Prasad vs Devi Rani Ghosh and Others

Vishwanath and Others vs Sri Deepak Kumar Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. U.P. and Another