Anil Kumar Singh and 8 Others vs Ravindra Pratap Singh and 13 Others

The instant second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and order dated 29.08.1992 vide judgment and order dated 25.07.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge Court No.1 Pratapgarh in Civil Appeal No.80 of 1992 "Raja Ram Singh & others versus Udai Raj Singh & others" as well as the judgment of Additional Civil Judge IV Additional Munshif Pratapgarh in Original Suit No.490 of 1984 "Udai Raj Singh & others versus Raja Ram Singh & others" passed on 29.08.1992 has been affirmed and the appeal of the defendants/ appellants has been dismissed. The lower appellate court has dismissed the civil appeal preferred by the defendants/ appellants against judgment and decree of trial court. The trial court partly decreed the suit of plaintiffs/ respondents.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the defendants/ appellants have claimed their title and possession over disputed property on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 03.07.1984 for Plot No.165C area 13 biswa 4 dhur , which is part of Plot No.165M. The sale deed was executed by Kashi Bux Singh and his co-sharers in favour of the defendants. On the strength of such sale deed, the name of the defendants/ appellants had been entered in revenue records and name of the vendors has been deleted in mutation proceedings but this sale deed has not been

¶14

SAPL No. 187 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

mentioned in the judgment and order of trial court and the plaintiffs/ respondents have shown their land as "disputed property" in the suit.

¶17

He next submits that the plaintiffs have made their claim over the disputed land on the basis of Section 9 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and has stated that the said land was appurtenant to their house, which got settled with them on the date of vesting and since then the plaintiffs are in possession of said land from the time of their predecessors. He next submits that the Advocate/ Court Commissioner has given area of disputed land as claimed by the plaintiffs as 13 biswa 4 dhur , which is around half of one beegha , the said land cannot be appurtenant to the house of the plaintiffs and it is difficult to believe that such a large area would have settled with the plaintiffs under Section 9 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act.

¶18

The findings of trial court are based on oral evidence tendered by the plaintiffs and Commissioner's report on which reliance was placed by the plaintiffs. As the defendants have filed detailed objection, on Commissioner's report and in view of that the Commissioner's report could not be relied upon without giving opportunity to cross-examine the Commissioner to the defendants. He said that the findings of both the courts below are perverse and in view of that the instant second appeal is maintainable in terms of substantial question of law proposed in memo of appeal.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits both the courts below have addressed all the arguments raised by the defendants/ appellants in impugned judgments and no fresh point has been raised in second appeal. In sale deed relied by the appellants, the boundary of the plot purchased is not shown, therefore, the purchased land/ plot is not identified in the sale deed.

¶20

He next submitted that the proposed substantial questions of law are in fact, not questions of law but are questions of fact. It is well settled law that this Court should not address questions of fact in the second appeal, therefore, this Court should not interfere on findings of fact recorded by the Court of first instance and affirmed by lower appellate court.

¶21

SAPL No. 187 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

In view of above submissions and on perusal of record, the following substantial questions of law are framed in the present appeal:-

¶24

I. Whether both the courts below have erred in law by placing reliance on report of Advocate/ Court Commissioner, without affording opportunity to cross-examine him to defendants/ appellants?

¶25

II. Whether the findings of fact recorded by both the courts below are against the weigh of evidence adduced by the parties and there is perversity in the findings of the courts below, which require reappraisal of evidence in second appeal, reappraisal of questions of fact in present appeal?

¶26

III. Whether the learned courts below have misconstrued the ambit of scope of Section 9 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act while decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

¶27