Disposed

Rajnikant Tripathi v. Bhriguraj and Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2025SAPL/155/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SAPL/Second Appeal 155 of 2024; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 19; decided 16 October 2025 by Hon’ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.; admission on substantial questions of law; permanent injunction suit; abadi/sahan abadi land of common ancestors; issue on actual possession not framed; partial dispossession admitted in plaint; no recovery of possession claimed; dec

What did the court decide?

Second appeal admitted on three substantial questions of law; lower court record summoned; parties directed to maintain status quo over the disputed property and barred from creating third party inter

Rajnikant Tripathi vs Bhriguraj and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

SECOND APPEAL No. - 155 of 2024

Rajnikant Tripathi

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Bhriguraj And Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Dev M Kumar	ani Mishra, Anil Kumar, Dwivedi, Virendra Mishr	Manoj a
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Rama Bashist Singh,	Soni, Ajaz Ahmad h Narayan Upadhyay, Rama Soni, Rohit	Khan, Pooja Kumar
	Tripath	i, Shamshad Ahmad

¶9

Court No. - 19

¶10

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondents.

¶12

Instant second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23-5-2024, passed by Additional District Judge, Room No.2, Pratapgarh, in Civil Appeal No.116 of 1988 (Uma Shankar and others versus Deenanath and others), wherein appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 173 of 1985, (Uma Shankar versus Deenanath), passed by Additional Munsif Court No.5, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pratapgarh, has been allowed and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed.

¶13

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant is the defendant in original suit. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment and order dated 12-05-1988, with the finding that the plaintiff is neither in possession of the disputed land nor his ownership thereon is established and proved. The plaintiff has absolutely failed to

¶14

SAPL No. 155 of 2024

¶15

¶16

prove his case that the disputed land is abadi land. The ahata number 49 to 53, was obtained and allocated to him in partition where the disputed land situates. Even the Commissioner's report in site plan, it is not clarified that the disputed land is land of Ahata No. 49 to 53. The plaintiff's ahata has not been proved to situate on disputed land. It is obvious that the disputed land is abadi land of defendant, pertinent to his house. The defendant's possession over the disputed land is proved. It is also proved on the basis of evidence that the plaintiff is not the owner of the disputed land situated therein. He next submits that the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial court wherein the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed, the plaintiff filed the first appeal before the court of the District Judge, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Pratapgarh, by impugned judgment and order dated 23-05-2024, and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the appellate court.

¶17

This is admitted fact that the disputed land is a land of abadi, which was owned by common ancestors of the parties since a long period. Learned counsel for appellant also submitted that the learned appellate court has wrongly rejected the plea of the appellant that his right over disputed had not matured under Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and given wrong findings that the possession of the plaintiff/appellant is proved since the period of the abolition of Zamindari. The plaintiffs/respondents have admitted in the plaint that they were dispossessed by defendant before filing of suit, but no relief of recovery of possession was claimed in the plaint. However, the learned appellate court has wrongly decreed the suit of plaintiff, ignoring the fact that the plaintiff was out of possession at the time of filing of suit.

¶18

SAPL No. 155 of 2024

¶19

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned civil judge has wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, ignoring the evidence adduced by the parties by which the balance of probability was in favour of the plaintiff and relief of permanent and mandatory injunction was claimed by the plaintiff themselves. The disputed land belongs to common ancestors of the parties.

¶21

Initially, the disputed land belongs to the common ancestors of the parties which came to share and possession of the plaintiff and in the partition between the grandfathers of the parties, the disputed land came into the share of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been in long possession of the disputed property. The defendants could neither prove their case of adverse possession nor the vesting of the disputed land in their favour under Section 9 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents lastly submitted that a substantial question of law may not be framed on the basis of issues of facts. The State is not a necessary party in the suit and it is nobody's case because it is the case of the parties where the disputed land is sahan abadi land and it was owned by the common ancestors of the parties.

¶23

The sahan darwaja of the defendant was always towards east of the defendant's house, but the defendant is claiming the disputed land by opening a darwaja on the western side of his house.

¶24

The Commissioner's report also support the respondents' case, on which reliance has been placed by lower court. The claim of the respondents over disputed land is also fortified by unregistered gift deed executed by Ramvaran in favour of Boni Devi through whom the appellant inherited her property after death. Learned appellate court also

¶25

SAPL No. 155 of 2024

¶26

¶27

placed reliance on said document which is more than 20 years old. The said gift deed has not been cancelled by any competent court. Parties are decedent of same common ancestor.

¶28

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

¶29

(i) Whether the suit of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession can be decided without framing an issue regarding actual possession of the parties when the plaintiff stated in the plaint itself that he was partly dispossessed from the disputed land by the defendant before filing of the suit?

¶30

(ii) Whether based on the facts of the case, it was mandatory for the plaintiff to seek relief of declaration of title along with relief of injunction?

¶31

(iii) Whether cogent evidence, as rightly appreciated by the trial court, was ignored by the first appellate court which resulted perversity of findings of the first appellate court's reappreciation of evidence?

¶32

Admit.

¶33

Summon the lower court record.

¶34

List this case on 28.11.2025.

¶35

Parties are directed to maintain status quo over the disputed property and abstain from creating any third party interest therein by way of transfer.

¶36

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶37

October 16, 2025 KR

¶38

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajnikant Tripathi v. Bhriguraj and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnikant Tripathi v. Bhriguraj and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhaskar Yadav @ Sadhu vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shri Lallu Ram vs Union of India Thru. General Manager Northern Railway, Baroda House

United India Insurance Company Ltd., B. M., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager vs Anish Bano and Others

4TH Battalion Sashastra Seema Bal Mohanlalganj Lko. Thru. Its Commandant vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) Lko. and 4 Others

4TH Battalion Sashastra Seema Bal Its Office Thru. Its Commandant vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Distt. Magistrate Land Acquisition Lko. and 2 Others

4TH Battalion Sashastra Seema Bal Having Officer Lko Thru. Its Commandant vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Dist. Magistrare (Land Acquisition) Lko and Another