Medai Lal vs Jai Prakash and Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

SECOND APPEAL No. - 206 of 2025

Medai Lal

.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Jai Prakash And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ram Kumar Verma, Jai
Prakash Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶5

Court No. - 19

¶6

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

¶8

The instant second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. has been preferred against the judgement dated 20.08.2025 and Decree dated 27.08.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.4 Sitapur in Civil Appeal No.87 of 2017 (Medai Lal Vs. Jai Prakash and others) which was filed against the judgment dated 16.11.2017 and decree dated 28.11.2017 passed by Civil Judge ( J.D.) Biswan, Sitapur in Suit for prohibitory injunction aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 20.08.2025 and 27.08.2025 respectively and judgment and decree dated 16.11.2017 and 28.11.2017 respectively.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff/appellant has filed a civil suit as Original Suit No. 121 of 1999 before Civil Judge ( J.D.) Bishwan, District- Sitapur for relief of peremanent injunction in respect of land in suit demarcated as Ka, Kha, Ga and Gha in the site plan appended to the feet of the plaint and the same has been demarcated in the Commission Report as Cha, Ka, Kha, Gha and Chha in the

¶10

SAPL No. 206 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

site plan of the plaint Chauddhai (boundary) has been mentioned. The defendants started digging foundation in land in suit on 30.06.1999 for raising constructions for that purpose the construction material which required for filing of suit. The disputed land is Sahan of the house of the plaintiff in which two doors are opened; one towards western side and other towards southern side. The south towards door is main exit from the house of the plaintiff. The water of the house of the plaintiff also fall in a drain at disputed Sahan. The plaintiff is the owner and possession of the disputed land at time his ancestors and prior to abolition of zimindari. On the other hand, defendants claimed their title of the disputed property on the basis of sale-deed executed by his brother of plaintiffChavi Nath on 23.02.1999 and 23.06.1999.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that plaintiff has filed separate suit for cancellation of these sale-deeds before the competent court. The defendant has admitted in his statement that plaintiff has opened the door in southern wall of his house towards the disputed land.

¶14

Learned trial court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff without appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective and the learned first appellate court has also dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff without considering the grounds taken therein and the evidence adduced by the plaintiff before the trial court as well as appellate court which resulted in perversity in the findings of both the courts below and the appeal is maintainable on the grounds mentioned in memo of appeal.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the plaintiff has filed a compromise on 07.03.1997 which was entered between the appellant and his real brother Chavi Nath whereby out of two houses, one house was given to each of them. This compromise was admitted by the appellate court under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. but it has not been considered

¶16

SAPL No. 206 of 2025

¶17

3

¶18

in the impugned judgement of appellate court due to which plaintiff/appellant suffered irreparable loss. He also submitted that the plaintiff/appellant filed certified photostat copy of the plaint for cancellation of sale-deed executed by Chavi Nath and others. Certified copy of the written statement filed by the defendants through Paper No. 65 C-1 which was admitted by the appellate court vide order dated 10.03.2025, but the same has not been considered in the impugned judgment and based its decision mainly on the sale-deed executed by Chavi Nath in favour of D.W.-1 Nand Kishore regarding his house and Sahan. The defendant has filed those sale-deed by list of Paper no.28C dated 20.07.2001. The trial court has dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff/ appellant under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading the vendor Chavi Nath as a party to the suit but the same was dismissed in-as-much as the application of Chavi Nath was being impleaded to the party to the suit has also been dismissed by the trial court.

¶19

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, the following substantial questions of law are being framed:-

¶20

(1) Whether the findings recorded by both the courts below are perverse and outcome of misleading /misappreciation of evidence adduced by the parties during hearing of the case before the trial court which requires reappraisal of evidence.

¶21

(2) Whether the appellate court has committed manifest the error of law ignoring the documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff/ appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. which is substantive piece of evidence for the purposes of deciding the first appeal.

¶22

(3) Whether learned trial court has failed to decide the subsequent issue which was amended on 10.11.2017 in respect of possession of the property in suit. If so, its effect .

¶23

(4) Whether learned appellate court has committed an error of law while ignoring the additional evidence adduced by the

¶24

SAPL No. 206 of 2025

¶25

4

¶26

plaintiff in first appeal which is a copy of compromise dated 07.03.1997 in which the land in suit is allegedly allotted to the share of the plaintiff/appellant.

¶27

Admit.

¶28

Summon the lower court record.

¶29

Issue notice to respondents which shall be served through District Judge concerned.

¶30

Steps be taken within a week.

¶31

List on 15.01.2026.

¶32

In the meanwhile, parties are directed to maintain status quo of the property in suit as it exists today.