Second appeal in a suit for permanent injunction over land recorded in the name of Gram Samaj. Courts below found the appellant failed to prove ownership, possession or title to trees. The High Court found no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the appeal at admission stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12245
Court No. - 4
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 347 of 2011
Appellant :- Chandrika Prasad Agnihotri Respondent :- Raj Kishore Shukla And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Shyam Mohan,Avinash Kumar Srivastava,Shyam Mohan Pradhan,Sushil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Raj Kumar Bajpai,Anjani Kumar Srivastava,Bireshwar Nath,Shivam Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
ownership of the trees on the land in dispute. The land in dispute is recorded in the name of Gram Samaj but it appears that no objection was ever filed by the appellant. The claim of the respondents is that the land in dispute was allotted to them by Gram Samaj thereafter they are in possession on the land in dispute. On the basis of evidence of PW-1 i.e. the appellant, a finding has also been recorded by the courts below that the appellant is not in possession of the land in dispute.
"11. In this case, there are concurrent findings on facts by both the courts below. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has laid down the law that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below should not be interfered by the High Court in Second Appeal, unless and until the findings are perverse.
12. In a recent case of Shivah Balram Haibatti Vs. Avinash Maruthi Pawar (2018)11 SCC 652 the Apex Court has held as under:-
"...... These findings being concurrent findings of fact were binding on the High Court and, therefore, the second appeal should have been dismissed in limine as involving no substantial question of law."
13. In another recent case of Narendra and others Vs. Ajabrao S/o Narayan Katare (dead) through legal representatives, (2018) 11 SCC 564 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"...interference in second appeal with finding of fact is permissible where such finding is found to be wholly perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such finding or where that finding is found to be against any settled principle of law or pleadings or evidence. Such errors constitute a question of law permitting interference in Second Appeal."
14. In one more recent case Dalip Singh Vs. Bhupinder Kaur, (2018) 3 SCC 677 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if there is no perversity in concurrent findings of fact, interference by the High Court in Second Appeal is not permissible.
15. In Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly and Ors. [(2008) 7 SCC 85], the Apex Court held that a party is entitled to take an alternative plea. Such alternative pleas, however, cannot be mutually destructive of each other.
16. In State Bank of India and others Vs. S.N. Goyal; (2008) 8 SCC 92 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
"Second appeals would lie in cases which involve substantial questions of law. The word
'substantial' prefixed to 'question of law' does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. 'Substantial questions of law' means not only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties. In the context of section 100 CPC, any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing in the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law. Where there is a clear and settled enunciation on a question of law, by this Court or by the High Court concerned, it cannot be said that the case involves a substantial question of law."
...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.)
Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Haseen U.
Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below on possession of the disputed land could be interfered with in second appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suryakunwari versus Nanhu and OthersRelied on¶7
2019(37) LCD 2346
Chandrika Prasad Agnihotri
Raj Kishore Shukla
Other respondents
Rajnish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
