Naiyyar Alam and Another vs Abdul Samad and 3 Others

This is a second appeal filed by the defendants, who being aggrieved against a judgment and decree of reversal dated 21.08.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track-I), Ambedkar Nagar in Civil Appeal No.5 of 2020, whereby the plaintiffs' first appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been allowed. As a consequence, the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2019 passed by the learned trial Court in Original Suit No.489 of 2000, dismissing the suit of plaintiffs/respondent nos.1 to 3 has been set aside and the suit has been decreed by the first appellate court.

¶13

The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the sole controversy between the parties was relating to the location of plot no.926Aa, which was claimed to belong to the plaintiffs/respondent nos.1 to 3, whereas the case of the appellants/defendants was that they were the owners of plot no.926Sa. It is urged that since the location could not be determined, and no evidence was led in this regard by the plaintiffs before the trial Court, the suit came to be dismissed. However, the first appellate court, merely taking note of certain documents and records from the consolidation authorities, has

¶14

SAPL No. 159 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

given a finding that the plaintiffs' construction was on plot no.926Aa. It is further urged that even in the site plan annexed with and forming part of the plaint, no construction of a house was indicated on the plot as claimed by the plaintiffs, and in the absence of any cogent evidence in this regard, the suit could not have been decreed, particularly when a clear distinction between plot nos.926Aa and 926Sa, which could only have been determined through a survey commission, which was not got executed.

¶17

The matter requires consideration.

¶18

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

¶19

(i) Whether the first appellate court has committed an error in recording a finding relating to the two plots without there being any evidence of a survey to indicate the length and extent of the two plots;

¶20

(ii) Whether the first appellate court has committed an error in allowing the suit without taking note of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Shreepat v. Rajendra Prasad, (2000) 6 SCC 389 .

¶21

Since the respondent nos.1 to 3 have already put in appearance, no fresh notice is required. Insofar as the private respondent no.4 is concerned, he is a proforma party and the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs; hence, no notice is issued.

¶22

Summon the trial Court record.

¶23

Steps be taken by 7th of October, 2025.

¶24

As an interim protection, it is provided that till the next date of listing, the parties shall maintain status quo as exists today.

¶25

List this case in the 3rd week of November, 2025.

¶26

September 25, 2025 Mahesh

¶27

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)