Kamla Devi and Another vs Siyaram and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kamla Devi and Another vs Siyaram and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal admitted on the framed substantial question of law; lower courts' records summoned; interim direction to both parties to maintain status quo as to the nature and possession of the property until further orders and to exchange affidavits, if any; matter and stay application listed on 27.8.2025. No final decision on the substantial question at this stage.

Issue for consideration

Substantial question of law on which the second appeal is admitted: whether the plaintiffs were required to seek a relief for declaration, given that at the time of execution of the registered sale deed the title of the recorded tenure holder (vendor) was not in question.

Court's answer

The second appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law whether the plaintiffs were required to seek a relief for declaration where, at the time of execution of the registered sale deed, the title of the recorded tenure holder (vendor) was not in question; the question is framed for consideration at the final hearing, not decided on merits at this stage.

Ratio / Principle

Interim direction on the stay application: until further orders of this Court, both parties are to maintain status quo with respect to the nature and possession over the property in question; the parties are also directed to exchange their respective affidavits, if any, and the matter and stay application are listed on 27.8.2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Dinesh Pathak, J.) — Second Appeal No. 195 of 2025 (order dated 27.5.2025). Plaintiffs, claiming title under registered sale deeds dated 26.2.2013, obtained a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from the trial court (judgment dated 31.7.2015), which also rejected the defendants' counter claim for cancellation of the sale deeds. The first appellate court allowed the defendants' appeal, reversed the decree on the view that a title dispute was pending and the plaintiffs ought to seek declaration, while affirming rejection of the counter claim. In the plaintiffs' second appeal, the High Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law whether the plaintiffs were required to seek relief for declaration when, at the time of execution of the sale deed, the title of the recorded tenure holder (vendor) was not in question. Lower courts' records summoned; until further orders both parties directed to maintain status quo as to nature and possession of the property; listed on 27.8.2025.

Court No. - 37

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 195 of 2025

Appellant :- Kamla Devi And Another Respondent :- Siyaram And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Apoorva Bhatt,Arpit Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Tripathi

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

Plaintiffs have filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to the effect that defendants may be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff No. 1, Smt. Kamla Devi over plot No. 243, area 0.274 hectare shown by letters A, B, C, D at the foot of the plaint and in the possession of plaintiff No. 2, namely, Smt. Meena Devi over plot No. 34 area 0.200 hectare and plot No. 230 area 0.315 hectare shown by letters E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L at the foot of the plaint. Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 are claiming their right and title over the property in question on the basis of registered sale deeds dated 26.2.2013, which were separately executed in their favour with respect to the plot in question. During pendency of the suit, defendants have filed counter claim with the prayer for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 26.2.2013 executed in favour of defendant No. 1 and another sale deed dated 26.2.2013 executed in favour of plaintiff No. 2, and ancillary relief has been sought for as well for permanent prohibitory injunction against the plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2. Learned trial court, vide judgment dated 31.7.2015, has decreed the suit and rejected the counter claim. First appellate court has allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment passed by the trial court, the appeal having been filed on behalf of the defendants.The appellate court has reversed the judgment on the ground that title dispute is still pending consideration before the court below. Therefore, plaintiffs have to seek a relief for declaration. First appellate court has reversed the judgment with respect to the suit and affirmed the judgment with regard to the rejection of the counter claim.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that on the date of execution of the registered sale deeds dated 26.2.2013, there was no dispute with regard to the title inasmuch as title of vendor was absolute, who was recorded in the land revenue record. After the date of the execution of the sale deeds, defendants have agitated the issue before the consolidation court by moving a recall

application. He has admitted that, at present chak allotment proceeding and title are pending at the stage of High Court in writ petition.

The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

Whether plaintiffs were required to sought for the relief for declaration, whereas, at the time of execution of the registered sale deed, the title of the recorded tenure holder (vendor) was not in question?

Let lower courts records be summoned.

Defendants-respondents No. 1 to 4 are already represented through counsel.

List this matter on 27.8.2025.

Stay Application

List on 27.8.2025.

In the meantime, both the parties are directed to exchange their respective affidavits, if any.

Until further orders of this Court, parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the nature and possession over the property in question.

Order Date :- 27.5.2025 vinay

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad