Dismissed¶19

Ram Singh v. Seema and Another

Allahabad HC20 May 2025SAPL/101/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed; Section 100 CPC; concurrent findings of fact; no substantial question of law; permanent injunction suit; unregistered Ijazatnama versus registered sale deed dated 23.07.1971; erstwhile Raja of Mahmudabad; Brijlal; Banwari Lal; Gram Nyayalay Fatehpur Barabanki; Additional District Judge Barabanki; Regular Appeal; plaintiffs failed to prove title; defendants held owners; Ram Singh v. Seema; Second Appeal No. 101 of 2025; 2025:AHC-LKO:29717; Abdul Moin, J.; 20.05.2025; Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned trial court and the learned appellate court, no case for interference with the orders impugned is made out and no substantial question of law arises; accordingly the second appeal is dismissed. ¶18

Ram Singh Vs Seema and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether, on the concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the first appellate court that the defendants are the owners of the disputed land and the plaintiffs failed to prove title, any substantial question of law arises warranting interference with the impugned orders in this second appeal. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

¶18

Ratio / Principle

On a perusal of the judgments below, this court found that the plaintiffs staked their claim over the disputed land on the basis of an unregistered Ijazatnama while the courts considered the registered sale deed in favour of the defendants, and that after examining the issues threadbare both courts conclusively found the defendants to be the owners of the land and the plaintiffs to have miserably failed to prove title.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Abdul Moin, J.; Order Date 20.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:29717) - dismissed. Suit No.13 of 2002 (Banwari Lal vs. Nazrul and Others), filed by the appellant's father for permanent injunction over land measuring 35 by 45 sq. ft. bearing a house built by his uncle Brijlal, was dismissed by the Judicial Officer, Gram Nyayalay, Fatehpur, Barabanki (judgment and order dated 02.04.2024); the first appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Barabanki (judgment dated 06.03.2025, decree dated 10.03.2025). The plaintiffs claimed possession through an unregistered Ijazatnama given by the erstwhile Raja of Mahmudabad in favour of Brijlal; the defendants claimed under a registered sale deed dated 23.07.1971, which the plaintiffs never challenged. With both courts giving concurrent, conclusive findings that the defendants are the owners of the land and the plaintiffs miserably failed to prove title, no substantial question of law arose and no case for interference with the orders impugned was made out.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29717

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 101 of 2025 Appellant :- Ram Singh Respondent :- Seema And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mahesh Prasad,Samar Singh Rawat Counsel for Respondent :- Rajeev Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶6

This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 06.03.2025 and decree dated 10.03.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Barabanki dismissing the Regular Appeal No.17 of 2024 and affirming the judgment dated 02.04.2024 and decree dated 08.04.2025 passed by Judicial Officer, Gram Nyayalay, Fatehpur, Barabanki dismissing the Suit No.13 of 2002 In Re: Banwari Lal and Others vs. Nazrul and Others.

¶7

Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as set forth by learned counsel for the appellant are that father of the appellant / plaintiff namely Shri Banwari Lal had filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Suit No. 13 of 2002 in Re: Banwari Lal vs. Nazrul and Others which was a suit for permanent injunction pertaining to the land measuring 35 by 45 sq. ft. over which a house had been built by the uncle of Shri Banwari Lal namely Shri Brijlal. The house was said to have been built after the aforesaid piece of land had been purchased by Shri Brijlal from the erstwhile Raja of Mahmudabad.

¶8

During pendency of the suit, Shri Banwari Lal died with the result that the appellant herein namely Ram Singh and his mother namely Smt. Ram Pyari were impleaded as legal heirs.

¶9

The defendants therein (respondents herein) put in appearance and staked their claim on the land in dispute on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 23.07.1971.

¶10

The learned Trial court, after examining the witnesses as were led by the parties, was of the view that the plaintiff(s) had miserably failed to prove any title over the land in dispute and accordingly, dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated 02.04.2024.

¶11

Being aggrieved, the the father of the appellant / plaintiff filed Regular Appeal No.71 of 2024 in Re: Banwari Lal vs. Najrul which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 06.03.2025.

¶12

Being aggrieved, this second appeal has been filed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the learned trial court and the learned appellate court have failed to appreciate the Ijazatnama which has been filed by the father of the appellant namely Shri Banwari Lal both before the learned trial court and before the learned appellate court and both the courts have been swayed by the registered sale deed in favour of the defendants / respondents herein.

¶14

9. No other ground has been urged.

¶15

On the other hand, Shri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the learned trial court and the learned appellant court have considered threadbare the evidence as has been led by the parties before the courts. Both the courts have also appreciated that the plaintiff failed to prove any legal possession over the land in dispute rather they were claiming it on the basis of an unregistered Ijazatnama and they also did not have any sale deed with respect to the land in dispute vis-a-vis

¶16

the sale deed which was produced by the defendants before the learned trial court which led the learned trial court to observe that no challenge to the said sale deed has been raised by the plaintiff and thus, considering the undisputed sale deed in favour of the defendants over the aforesaid piece of land vis-avis the unregistered Ijazatnama, no infirmity has been committed by both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court and as such, the suit and appeal filed by the appellant have rightly been dismissed.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

It emerges that a suit for permanent injunction had been filed by the father of the appellant namely Shri Banwari Lal with respect to the land in dispute measuring 35 by 45 sq.ft. over which a house was situated.

¶19

Shri Banwari Lal was claiming possession over the said piece of land and the house on the basis of an Izazatnama which had been given by the erstwhile Raja of Mahumdabad in favour of the uncle of Shri Banwari Lal namely Shri Brij Lal.

¶20

The defendants put in appearance and staked their claim over the land in dispute on the basis of a registered sale deed.

¶21

The learned trial court had examined the sale deed vis-a-vis the Ijazatnama, which incidentally was unregistered Ijazatnama, and after observing that the plaintiff has failed in raising a challenge to the aforesaid sale deed in favour of the defendants and no cognizance can be placed on an unregistered Ijazatnama, had dismissed the suit. The aforesaid findings of the learned trial court have also been affirmed with the dismissal of the appeal that has been filed by the plaintiff(s).

¶22

A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court would indicate that although the plaintiff(s) had staked their claim over the land in dispute on the basis of the unregistered Ijazatnama yet both the learned trial and the learned appellate court have considered the registered sale deed in favour of the defendants and have also considered that the Ijazatnama, on the basis of which the plaintiffs were staking their claim over the land is dispute, is an unregistered Ijazatnama / document.

¶23

After examining the issues threadbare, both the learned trial court and the learned appellate court have given a conclusive finding that the defendants are the owner of the land in dispute and the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their title over the land in dispute.

¶24

Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court, no case for interference with the orders impugned is made out. No substantial question of law arises.

¶25

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶26

Order Date :- 20.5.2025 S. Shivhare

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Singh v. Seema and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh v. Seema and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. N.Delhi Throu Its R.M. Vs Smt.Poonam and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Lucknow through the Manager Vs Sadhana Devi and Ors.

Dr. Ajit Priyadarshi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Edu. Lko and 4 Others

Ramashray Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Khalid Husain vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Comm. New Delhi and 2 Others

Ram Prakash vs Sri. Vaibhav Srivastava, Managing Director, Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Lko.