Rukhsana Begum vs Smt. Jilaee Begum

¶1

Court No. - 8

¶2

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 121 of 2025

¶3

Appellant :- Rukhsana Begum Respondent :- Smt. Jilaee Begum Counsel for Appellant :- Mohammad Saeed

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶6

The instant second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred assailing the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) North, Unnao in R.S.No.40/2010, whereby the suit preferred by the appellant seeking a decree of permanent injunction was dismissed. The first appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.54 of 2023 also did not find favour with the contentions of the appellant and by means of the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2025 dismissed the appeal which compelled the appellant to approached this Court.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant had purchased the property by means of the registered sale-deed. Thereafter, the appellant got her name duly mutated in the revenue records and was in possession. Since, the defendant was interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, hence, the suit came to be filed. Specific issues were framed as to whether the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the disputed property.

¶8

It is submitted that in support of her case, the plaintiff had filed certified copies of the record of rights, sale-deed as well as the document of possession (Kharsa) indicating that prior to the purchase, the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was recorded and after the purchase, the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records. Once the aforesaid documents were filed which remained uncontroverted then it was not open for the trial Court to take a view that the plaintiff was unable to establish her case nor the possession. The defendant, who had tried to set up her title in her favour also could not prove her title nor her possession yet by being swayed her strenuous consideration, the deposition and the evidence have not been appropriately considered by the trial Court. The first appellate Court has also echoed the same sentiments as expressed by the trial Court and did not reappraise the evidence and recorded as the duty of the first appellate Court and for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal was incorrectly dismissed.

¶9

The matter requires consideration.

¶10

The second appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

¶11

(i) Whether the two Courts were justified in ignoring the document of title, the sale-deed and the khasra which clearly indicated the possession and title of the appellant.

¶12

(ii) Whether the two Courts have committed an error in misreading the evidence and incorrectly shifted the burden of proof on the plaintiff whereas it was the plaintiff who had prima-facie deposed by leading cogent evidence both in respect of the title and possession and the burden of the defendant was also incorrectly shifted upon the plaintiff/appellant.

¶13

Let notice be issued to the respondent returnable at an early date.

¶14

Let the record of lower Court Record be summoned.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant shall take steps for service on the respondent as well as summoning of the record of Lower Court within a week from today.

¶16

List this matter in first week of September, 2025.

¶17

As an interim protection, it is provided that the parties shall maintain status-quo as it exists and none of the parties shall create any third party right or change the nature of the property in dispute.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.7.2025 Rakesh/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rukhsana Begum v. Smt. Jilaee Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukhsana Begum v. Smt. Jilaee Begum

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

C/M Waqf No. 318 Rampur Thru. Erstwhile Secy. Tazimuddin vs U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board Thru. Chairman Lko and Another

Lko. Development Authority Thru. Secy. vs Shakuntala Devi (Dead) Thru. Sudhir Kumar Rastogi and Others

Lko. Development Authority Vipin Khand Gomti Nagar Lko. Thru. Secy. vs Chandra Kishore Rastogi (Dead) and 3 Others

Rajkumari and 5 Others vs Shreekrishna and 8 Others

The New India Assurance Company Limited Thru. Manager vs Om Prakash and 3 Others

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Officer in Charge vs Smt. Ram Rani and 5 Others