Dismissed

Sati Prasad and Ors. v. Smt. Tarawati and Ors.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2025SAPL/113/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appellant challenged dismissal of cancellation suit regarding disputed land sale. Armed Remedy Bench recorded no error, denying any substantial question of law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sati Prasad and Ors. Vs Smt. Tarawati and Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7833

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 113 of 2021

¶4

Appellant :- Sati Prasad And Ors. Respondent :- Smt. Tarawati And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Vidya Bhushan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar Singh,Raghaw Ram Upadhyay

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellants is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri V.B.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri R.R.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that uncle of the appellants Ram Pher was issueless, therefore, he wanted to give his property to the appellants but the respondent no.2 who was confidant of the uncle of the appellants got the sale deed executed in favour of his wife i.e. Smt. Tarawati-respondent no.1. On coming to know about the same, the suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed, in which it was admitted by the respondent no.1 in the evidence that the sale consideration was paid to the uncle of the appellants before her husband only, whereas no sale consideration was paid but the burden to prove non-payment of sale consideration shifted on the appellants and since it could not be proved, the suit was dismissed. The learned lower appellate court also without considering the grounds raised by the appellants and considering the evidence of the defence witnesses that the sale consideration was paid to the uncle of the appellants,dismissed the appeal. Therefore the impugned judgment and decrees are not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the uncle of the appellants had executed the sale deed of half portion of the land in dispute in favour of the respondent no.1 after receiving the sale consideration and the receipt of the sale consideration has been recorded by the Sub-Registrar on the sale deed. If the uncle of the appellants wanted to give whole of the property to the appellants, then the sale deed of half portion would not have been executed and if the allegation of the appellants would have been correct that the respondent no.2 got the sale deed executed fraudulently in favour of his wife and if he was in such a position, he would have got the sale deed of whole property executed. The uncle of the appellants had

¶10

executed the sale deed with his own Sweet Will after receiving the sale consideration. He further submits that the remaining half portion of the property was sold by the uncle of the appellants to the mother of the appellants and in the sale deed executed in favour of the mother of the appellants, in the boundaries, the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent no.1 has been referred. However the appellants got the suit for cancellation of sale deed filed after execution of the sale deed in favour of the mother of the appellants. Thus learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned trial court as well as lower appellate court has rightly and in accordance with law decided the suit and the appeal considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record and there is no illegality or error in it.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records.

¶12

The suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 16.01.2004 was filed by the uncle of the appellants, which was contested by the respondents by filing the written statement. Thereafter the issues were framed and the evidence was adduced by the parties. After considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record, the learned trial court recorded a finding that the appellants have failed to prove that the sale consideration was not received by them and the material witnesses of the sale deed have not been produced to prove it. It has further been recorded that even in the sale deed executed on 29.09.2004 in favour of mother of the appellants Reshma, execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent no.1 dated 16.01.2004 has been admitted. It has also been recorded that the appellants have failed to prove that they had been in possession of the land in dispute and accordingly dismissed the suit. The learned lower appellate court also considering the grounds raised by the appellants, pleadings evidence and material on record dismissed the appeal by a reasoned and speaking order, which does not call for any interference by this Court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

¶13

7. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage .

¶14

Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Akanksha/-

¶15

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

Sati Prasad and Ors. v. Smt. Tarawati and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sati Prasad and Ors. v. Smt. Tarawati and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhilesh Singh Vs Dinesh Singh and Anr.

Bilal Ahmad Vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Smt. Garima Shukla vs Kanchan Verma, Stata Project Director Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Lko. and Another

Mohd. Afak and 2 Others Vs Om Prakash and 5 Others

Kamleshwar Tiwari . Vs Abhishek Verma and Ors.

Rakesh Verma Vs Jhabbu and Another