Sheetla Prasad and 4 Others v. Mst. Patiraji

Court No. - 4

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 174 of 2024

Appellant :- Sheetla Prasad And 4 Others Respondent :- Mst. Patiraji Counsel for Appellant :- Jai Prakash Yadav,Arvind Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Shyam Singh

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Jai Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Shyam Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffrespondent had filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the appellants,which was dismissed by the trial court after considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record dealing each and every plea raised by the appellants but the first appellate court without setting aside those findings, recorded it's independent finding and allowed the appeal. He further submits that the appellate court came to the conclusion that the issue on the relief claimed by the respondent for permanent injunction was not made by the trial court and framed the same as a point of determination alongwith the cancellation of sale deed and dealt with the same, whereas in case the issue was not framed by the trial court, after framing the same, the case should have been remanded to afford opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence on the same and then the same should have been decided. He further submits that expert opinion submitted by the respondent has also been accepted inadvertently and illegally, whereas the expert who had submitted the evidence was not cross examined. Thus, the submission is that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the appellate court is not sustainable.