Mansharam Vs Munna Lal

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16839

Court No. - 5 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 52 of 2025 Appellant :- Mansharam Respondent :- Munna Lal Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh (D.K.Singh),Anil Kumar Singh,Urvashi Vishwakarma Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶3

1 . Heard Shri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶4

2 . Instant second appeal has been filed raising a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No.110 of 2023 In Re Ganga Devi @ Ganga Dei vs Munna Lal by Special Judge, Ayurved Scam/C.B.I., Lucknow whereby the appeal filed by the appellant has been rejected.

¶5

Also under challenge is the order dated 10.06.2023 in Regular Suit No.910 of 2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.40, Lucknow whereby the suit has been dismissed.

¶6

3 . Copies of the said orders are part of the memo of the appeal.

¶7

4 . From the arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as perusal of the record, it emerges that a suit was filed in the year 2016 by Snt Ganga Dei, the mother of the appellant herein, praying for cancellation of the sale-deed pertaining to Khasra No.23 area 0.795 Hectare situated at Village Seevan, Pargana Mahona, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow on various grounds.

¶8

5 . One of the issues, which was framed by the learned trial court was as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for having the said registered sale-deed cancelled.

¶9

6 . The learned trial court, while considering the said issue, has been of the view that the sale-deed pertains to Gata No.23Sa while the suit has been filed for cancelling of sale-deed for Gata No.23, decided the

¶10

issue against the plaintiff and the suit itself was dismissed.

¶11

7 . Being aggrieved Smt Ganga Dei filed a first appeal.

¶12

8 . First appellate court also vide the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2025 dismissed the appeal by holding that the registered saledeed dated 20.06.1986 is undisputed and that it being a registered document under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 the burden of proof of the said sale deed having been executed in a false and fictitious manner lies on the appellant and the appellant has failed to discharge it accordingly, the appeal has been dismissed and hence the instant second appeal.

¶13

9 . Perusal of the plaint that had been filed by the plaintiff would indicate that the same was filed pertaining to Gata No.23. A copy of the plaint is annexure-1 to the appeal. A perusal of the sale-deed, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the appeal, would indicate that the same pertains to Gata No.23Sa. Learned trial court has also considered this aspect of the matter and has been of the view that once the suit was filed pertaining to cancellation of the sale-deed for Gata No.23 while the sale deed itself pertains to Gata No.23Sa consequently there cannot be any occasion for the plaintiff to have sought cancellation of the said sale deed more particularly when no such prayer to the said effect has been made.

¶14

10 . This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court more particularly considering that the plaint has been filed for cancellation of the sale deed pertaining to Gata No.23 and in fact the sale-deed pertains to Gata No.23Sa.

¶15

11 . Considering the aforesaid no case for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 25.3.2025/prateek

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mansharam v. Munna Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansharam v. Munna Lal

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager Vs Rekha Pathak and Others

Radhe Shyam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Gopi Nath Nishad vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal Executive Director K.M. Sugar Mills Limited Kanpur and 2 Others

Satyeshwari Rajpoot vs Shri Bholendra Pratap Singh District Basic Education Officer Ambedkar Nagar

Raj Kumar Srivastava vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar Lko. Saurabh Singh

Sangeeta Devi vs Gulab Singh, Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil-Baldirai Distt. Sultanpur