Ramtej and Another vs Krishna Lal and Others

The instant second appeal under Sectin 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 19.08.2025 and decree dated 02.09.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3 Faizabad passed in Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2021 ( Ramtej and other Vs. Krishna Lal and another ) as well as judgment and order dated 28.02.2020 passed in Original Suit No. 150 of 2010 ( Krishna Lal Vs. Ram Abhilakh and another ) where the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2020 / 13.03/2020 has been confirmed by the impugned appellate order dated 19.08.2025 passed in Appeal No. 07 of 2021.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the courts below have committed factual and legal error while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff against the strength of evidence appearing on record.The plaintiff has failed to provide measurement/length/area/ width of the disputed land and only depicted the same on the basis of boundary (Chauhaddi). The disputed land is shown by letters Aa, Ba,Sa, Da in the plaint map which is not appurtenant in the house of the plaintiff. The said land is shown as pertinent to 'Sahan' of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has stated that the disputed land is of his father and after his death , the plaintiff was engaged in farming of tobacco therein but he failed to produce any registration for growing tobacco as is mandatory under Rule 33 of Tobacco Board Rules 1975 framed by the Central Government

¶12

SAPL No. 199 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

which provides that Every person intending to grow Virginia tobacco shall apply to the Secretary or such other office of the Board as may be authorized by the Chairman in this behalf for a certificate of registration or for renewal of certificate of registration, five months before commencement of operations for growing Virginia tobacco in any State in any year . The plaintiff has stated in the plaint that he is a poor man and he has small portion of agricultural land. It is not natural that in the disputed land plaintiff used to keep 'Payal' ' Kharahi' whereas the defendant has stated that in the disputed land he was laying 'Khalihan'. In absence of any registration certificate, the cultivation of virtinia tobacco by the plaintiff and his father does not appear natural and reliable. There is no evidence that house of the plaintiff near the disputed land , was constructed prior to zimindari abolition , therefore, theory of vesting of disputed land with the plaintiff under Section 9 of the U.P. Z.A.L.R. Act is without any substance . The plaintiff has not specified as to why he received more land in family partition than the defendant and what is the exact area of land in dispute.

¶15

Learned courts below has placed reliance on the evidence of D.W.-2 Ramhet, who is not a contesting defendant and the defendant appellant is not bound by his admission before the Court in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant Ramhet has appeared as D.W.-2 on his own at the instance of the plaintiff and not at the instance of defendant i.e. defendant no.1 Ram Abhlakh whose his legal heirs have filed present appeal.

¶16

He lastly submits that learned court below has wrongly shifted the burden of prove on defendants whereas the plaintiff is bound to prove his case by his own and reliable evidence. It is the plaintiff who has come before the court seeking relief sought in the plaint. Both the courts below have fallen into error while decreeing and affirming the decree in favour of the plaintiff respectively. Therefore, the second appeal is liable to be admitted on substantial questions of laws as enumerated at the end of the memo of appeal.

¶17

On perusal of impugned judgment of both the courts below and in the light of submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, I find no legal error in approach taken by learned courts below in the impugned

¶18

SAPL No. 199 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

judgment . The legal position of spot as shown in the site plan appended to the plaint also fortifies the claim of the plaintiff over the disputed land which is appurtenant to the Sahan Darwaja of the house of the plaintiff. A Kharanza road between the house of defendants and plaintiff and Sahan Darwaja of defendant is shown in north side of Kharanza road whereas the house Sahan Darwaj and disputed land of the plaintiff situates towards south side of this Kharaza road. The site plan prepared by court's Amin during spot inspection also corroborates the position of spot as shown in site plan in the plaint.

¶21

Be that as it may, no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal. Inessence, the question of law proposed in the memo of appeal are essentially of question of facts regarding which concurrent findings are given by both the courts below and do not appear perverse requiring interference in the second appeal. The second appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶22

Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission in limine.

¶23

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶24

November 12, 2025 dk/

¶25

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramtej and Another v. Krishna Lal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramtej and Another v. Krishna Lal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases