Ram Bahadur vs Ram Kumar and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ram Bahadur vs Ram Kumar and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal admitted on four substantial questions of law; Lower Court record summoned; notice ordered to the respondents (steps within a week); matter listed on 01.12.2025; interim restraint that the disputed property/house shall not be transferred/alienated nor any charge created upon it until the next date of listing.

Issue for consideration

Substantial question of law (i): Whether the Trial Court decided the suit for permanent injunction without framing issues despite the written statement filed by defendant no.1, contrary to the mandate of law. +3 more

Ratio / Principle

The second appeal is admitted on the four substantial questions of law framed at admission, concerning (i) non-framing of issues despite defendant no.1's written statement, (ii) failure to discuss the plaintiff's evidence per Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC, (iii) sufficiency of the Nagar Nigam mutation record and other documents to prove title, and (iv) perversity of the concurrent findings on title.

Key takeaways

Interim restraint: till the next date of listing, the property/house in issue shall not be transferred or alienated and no charge shall be created over it.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 19, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J. (order dated October 30, 2025): Admitted Ram Bahadur's Second Appeal (SAPL No. 184 of 2025) under Section 100 CPC challenging the Appellate Court, Lucknow's judgment/decree dated 11.03.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 37/2014, which had dismissed his appeal and upheld the Trial Court's ex-parte decree dated 15.01.2014 rejecting his suit for permanent injunction over House No. 285Ka/314-A (area 648 sq.ft.). Four substantial questions of law were framed: (i) whether the suit could validly be decided without framing issues despite defendant no.1's written statement; (ii) whether the judgment is vitiated for not discussing the plaintiff's evidence in view of Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC; (iii) whether the Nagar Nigam mutation entry and other documents suffice to prove the plaintiff's title; and (iv) whether the concurrent findings on title are perverse. Lower Court record summoned, notice ordered, next listing 01.12.2025, with an interim bar on transfer, alienation or creation of charge over the disputed property till then. No precedent was engaged with; no merits adjudicated at this stage.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

SECOND APPEAL No. - 184 of 2025

Ram Bahadur

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Ram Kumar And 2 Others

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Anil Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:

Court No. - 19

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

Instant Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment, order and decree dated 11.03.2025 passed by Appellate Court, Lucknow in Civil Appeal No. 37/2014 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment, order and decree dated 15.01.2014 passed by the Trial Court has been upheld, which is also under challenge.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that present second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below.

He next submits that appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of House No. 285Ka/314-A (New No. 285Ka/339A), Sanjay Nagar, Aishbagh Chowki, Mill Area, Police Station - Bazar Khala, District - Lucknow of area 648 sq.ft. which is marked as ABCD in the site plan appended at the foot of the plaint. Allegations in the plaint are that the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff and trying to take possession of the plaintiff's house and land. However, the suit of plaintiff was dismissed ex-parte mainly on the ground that compromise had taken place in an earlier suit filed by the defendants against the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff

SAPL No. 184 of 2025

2

cannot be held as owner of the house in question.

He next submits that learned Appellate Court has also not considered the grounds taken in appeal and dismissed the appeal in cursory manner by placing concurrence with the opinion of Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

He next submits that defendant no.1 had filed written statement in the suit but no issue was framed by the Trial Court and the suit was decided ex-parte without framing the issues.

Matter requires consideration.

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

(i) Whether the Trial Court decided the suit for permanent injunction without framing issues inspite of filing of written statement of defendant no.1 against the mandant of law?

(ii) Whether the judgment of the Trial Court is vitiated for not discussing the evidence filed by the plaintiff in support of his case in view of provisions of Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC.

(iii) Whether the mutation of name of plaintiff in regard to Nagar Nigam Record and other documents filed by the plaintiff are sufficient to prove the title of the plaintiff on dispute property/house and learned Courts below have wrongly rejected the same?

(iv) Whether the judgments, orders and decrees of learned Courts below in regard to title of plaintiff over disputed property are perverse and are to be be interfered in the present appeal?

Summon Lower Court Record.

Issue notice to the respondents. Steps be taken within a week.

List on 01.12.2025.

Till the next date of listing, the property/house in issue shall not be transferred/alienated and no charge shall be created over the same.

October 30, 2025/ Mohit Singh/-

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench