Second appeals filed by Ram Mohan Singh challenging a lower court decision regarding a permanent injunction suit. The order adjourned the matter for 10 days to allow апеллянт to examine evidence.
Certum to examine evidence and argue on admission within 10 days. No benefit of pendency.
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. - 81 of 2024
Appellant :- Ram Mohan Singh Respondent :- Yashpal Singh And 11 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi,Ashish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Kumar Srivastava
AND
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 82 of 2024
Appellant :- Ram Mohan Singh Respondent :- Yashpal Singh And 11 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi,Ashish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard, Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Himanshu Kumar Bachhil, Advocate holding brief of Shri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents no.6 and 7/Caveator.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in regard to the land in dispute two lease deeds dated 28.04.1988 and 12.07.1990 in regard to Gata No.6194 were executed in favour of appellant by Maharaja Dharmendra Prasad Singh of Balrampur Estate. Thereafter the appellant had made constructions on the land in dispute after getting the map sanctioned from the Nagar Palika Parishad, Balrampur. The respondents started making hindrance in the peaceful possession of the appellant on the land in dispute and trying to make constructions, therefore a Suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant bearing Regular Suit No.373 of 1993. The respondents filed written statement and claimed that a sale deed has been executed by Shri Omkar Nath Pandey in his favour and Shri Onkar Nath Pandey had got the sale deed from Shri Surendra Bahadur Singh, whose predecessor-ininterest was an employee of Balrampur Estate, therefore the appellant had impleaded Shri Surendra Bahadur Singh and Shri Onkar Nath Pandey in his Suit and also filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed. The Suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant has got no right to file suit for permanent injunction on the basis of lease deed in his favour. Consequently the Suit for cancellation of sale deed has also been dismissed. The submission is that since the lease deed was in his favour, therefore in view of Section 108(J) of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 the appellant has
right to file a Suit for permanent injunction.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the sale deed in favour of respondents is of a prior date to that of the lease deed in favour of the appellant. He also submits that the lease deed could not be proved by the appellant and even it could not be proved that Shri Gulab Rai, who has executed the lease deed in favour of the appellant was Special Power of Attorney Holder of Maharaja Dharmendra Prasad Singh of Balrampur Estate. He also submits that the appellant is claiming injunction in regard to the property which is about the double of the area in regard to which the lease deed has been executed in favour of the appellant and even the appellant could not give the proper description of the property in his evidence. He also submits that in any case the lease deed executed in favour of the appellant was only for a period of seven years. He further submits that on the basis of sale deed, the name of respondents has been recorded in the revenue records. Thus the appeal is misconceived.
Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant prays for some time to go through the evidence and argue on admission.
As prayed list after ten days.
The appellant shall not claim any benefit of filing and pendency of these appeals.
. ...................................... .(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 1.5.2024 Banswar
Digitally signed by :- RAM NARESH BANSWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Ram Mohan Singh
Yashpal Singh
Rajnish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
