Second appeal by suit plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction based on two sale receipts and a later adverse-possession plea. The court held title and adverse possession pleas are inconsistent, respondents had better title by sale deed, no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal.
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:14773
Court No. - 29
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 33 of 2024
Appellant :- Pratap Bahadur Srivastava And Another Respondent :- Saumya Mehta And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shyam Mohan Pradhan
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
3. Present appeal has been filed for the following relief:
"Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the Second Appeal and set aside the judgement and decree dated-02.11.2023 passed by District Judge, Lakhimpur, Kheri in First Appeal No-54/2023. Computerised No-55 of 2023, Pratap Bahadur Srivastava & Others Versus Saumya Mehta & Others as well as judgement & decree dated-21.03.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri in Regular Suit No-127/2016, Computerised No822/2016, Pratap Bahadur Srivastava & Others Versus Saumya Mehta & Others and suit be decree as prayed in plaint with cost."
Kalawati in the year 2000 in favour of respondent no.1 being the owner on the basis of sale deed dated 04.06.1997 executed by the wife of Naresh Chandra after his death. It is also submitted that property in dispute as well as property purchased by respondent no.1 are situated in different locality. Appellate court also dismissed the appeal of the appellants without considering the fact that appellants have been in possession of the plot nos.15 and 16 on the basis of two sale receipts issued by the owner Naresh Chandra and also failed to consider the plea of adverse possession.
subsequently the plaint was amended and plea of adverse possession was also taken, though, both the pleas are not simultaneously permissible under the law. Secondly, the boundaries of the plot in question in the commission report is similar to the sale deed of respondent no.1. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the property in dispute is situated in different Mohalla is misconceived. This court is of the view that for claiming injunction against another person, the plaintiff must have prima facie proved better title to the defendant but in the present case admittedly the defendant/respondents are having better title than that of the plaintiff, therefore, no substantial question of law is made out. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed .
Order Date :- 20.2.2024
S.Chaurasia
Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law where appellants claimed title via unregistered sale receipts and adverse possession against a respondent with a registered sale deed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narasamma and Others Vs. A. Krishnappa (dead) Through Legal RepresentativesRelied on
(2020) 15 SCC 218 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pratap Bahadur Srivastava And Another
Saumya Mehta And Another
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
