Prem Chandra vs Raj Pratap Singh and 9 Others

The instant second appeal under Sectin 100 C.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2014 passed in Regular Suit No. 427 of 2002 by learned III Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) Faizabad as well as the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 212 of 2104 passed by learned I Additional District Judge, Ayoadhya.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by impugned judgements both the courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff which was otherwise proved by the plaintiff by cogent evidence. The plaintiff has placed his title on the basis of sale-deed and his possession of property in suit but the trial court has failed to appreciated and ascertain it. The plaintiff came to the site of dispute way back in the year 1977 in respect of registered sale-deed dated 11.09.1977 executed by Ram Subhawan Sing alias T. D. Singh son of Ram Lagan Singh in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed the disputed land which is in two parts one 26x25 feet land was obtained by the plaintiff through sale deed and 16x25 feet in a form of Gaddha/ pond which is adjacent to the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also took 400 sq. feet area of the seller after paying proper consideration.

¶14

He further submits that in the site plan appended to the written statement filed by the defendant no.5/ Bhanu Pratap Singh, the disputed land is shown to be in the possession of the defendant nos. 2 and 5 which is situated in the

¶15

SAPL No. 178 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

north side of the house of the plaintiff . The first part of the disputed land is shown to be appurtenant to the house of the plaintiff which is shown in possession of Bhanu Pratap Singh/ defendant no.5 and the other part of disputed land is shown to be north of the disputed land which is shown to be in possession of defendant no.2 .

¶18

He submits that defendant no.5 has not tendered any evidence during hearing of the case and only defendant no.2 contested the case through out . Faizabad- Akbarpur main road is shown in the south where the disputed land is shown. He next submitted that the trial court has given wrong findings that there are 80 feet land includes a part of Patri of main road. The defendant has claimed his tile and possession on the basis of a lease deed in his favor and proved by Gram Pradhan concerned before the court but the said land relate to the disputed land. He next submitted that learned trial court has misappreciated the evidence adduced in respect of the disputed land and has given perverse findings which need to be set aside.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the concurrent findings of fact given by both the courts below cannot be set aside or disturbed in second appeal which is admitted only on essential question of law and not on facts.

¶20

He next submitted that the suggestion relied upon by the plaintiff that an Aahata measuring 20x80 feets, the total area having 1600 sq. feet is shown to be purchased by Ram Shubawan Singh by showing Chauhhadi (boundary marks). This Aahata and thatched, sitting room are not part of disputed land. In-as-much as defendant no.2 has proved the lease dated 24.01.1992 by producing Gram Pradhan concerned before the trial court and it cannot be said that the same was not duly proved. The Gaddha shown in the site plan of the written statement of the defendant is not a part of the land of the plaintiff as the same is in dimension of three bighas which is now in the form of village Abadi, it cannot be Sahan of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was never in possession of the disputed land.

¶21

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and material on record , the following substantial questions of law are being formulated:-

¶22

SAPL No. 178 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

(1) Whether the assumption of the court below to limit the width of the State Highway upto its painted portion is incorrect, specifically when no measurement of the painted road has been given in the Commission report.

¶25

(2) Whether the findings recorded by both the courts below in the judgments under appeal is perverse and against the strength of evidence.

¶26

(3) Whether the findings of courts below about Patta relied upon by the defendant is perverse and no valid title on disputed land passed in favour of the defendant on the basis of the said Patta.

¶27

(4) Whether the Patta relied upon by the defendants is in violation of Section 122-C of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Rule 115 N.C. which provides that the lease should be in "Form 49-F' and there should be prior approval of the Assistant Collector.

¶28

(5) Whether without assessing the complete width of road land , the calculation of the trial court to demarcate the land of plaintiff is apparently wrong and illegal?

¶29

Admit.

¶30

Issue notice to respondent no.2 to 10 which shall be served through District Judge concerned.

¶31

Steps be taken within next 7 days.

¶32

Summon the lower court record.

¶33

List on 04.12.2025.

¶34

Till the next date of listing, the parties shall maintain status quo of the disputed property as exists today.