Dismissed¶24

Mubarak Ali (Deceased) and 6 Others v. Ram Autar Gupta and 6 Others

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2025SAPL/837/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court second appeal dismissed without formulating substantial question of law; Section 100 CPC; concurrent findings of fact; cancellation of sale-deed dated 04.05.2001; mortgage with U.P. Land Development Bank; alleged bar under Section 22 U.P. Co-operative Land Development Act; Gata No. 111, Village Dharampur, Tehsil Swar, District Rampur; ex-parte decree set aside via Order IX Rule 13 CPC restoration; Kripa Ram v. Surendra Deo Gaur; Ashok Rangnath Magar (2015) 16 SCC 763; no interference with courts below.

What did the court decide?

Both courts below concurrently recorded the finding that the sale-deed dated 04.05.2001 was executed by the plaintiff and that the loan was repaid by the defendant. ¶17

Mubarak Ali (Deceased) and 6 Others Vs Ram Autar Gupta and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

SECOND APPEAL No. - 837 of 2025

¶3

Mubarak Ali (Deceased) And 6 Others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
Ram Autar Gupta And 6 Others	...	..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) :	Anand Kumar, Birendra Vinod Kumar Yadav	Pratap Yadav,
Counsel for Respondent(s) :	Zafeer Ahmad

¶6

Court No. - 36

¶7

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for respondent.

¶9

This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. arising out of judgment and decree dated 16.09.2025 passed by Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court (CAW), Court No. 1, Rampur in Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2024 and judgment and decree dated 04.10.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rampur in Original Suit No. 37 of 2005.

¶10

The plaintiff-appellant, before this Court, claims that he is owner in possession of half portion of Gata No. 111, measuring 0.963 hectare situated at Village-Dharampur, Tehsil-Swar, District Rampur. The property in question was mortgaged with U.P. Land Development Bank from where he had taken loan. The alleged sale-deed was executed by way of forgery in favour of defendant on 04.05.2001 and the suit for cancellation of sale-deed was filed which was registered as Original Suit No. 37 of 2005. The trial court earlier decreed the suit ex-parte against which an appeal was preferred which was later on withdrawn and restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed in the suit which was allowed and the suit was tried again. The trial court dismissed the suit on 04.10.2024 against which a Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2020 was filed which has been dismissed by judgment impugned. Hence, this second appeal.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that land in question could not have been sold as it was mortgaged with U.P. Co-operative Land Development Act and sale is barred by Section 22 of the Act. According to him, the sale-deed dated 04.05.2001 is void ab initio .

¶12

Learned counsel for defendant-respondent no. 1 submitted that sale-deed was executed by plaintiff in the year 2001 as he had taken loan on the condition that entire outstanding amount would be repaid by defendant which was repaid and the Bank has not come up before the court claiming

¶13

SAPL No. 837 of 2025

¶14

¶15

the possession of the mortgaged land. According to him, there exists no mortgage.

¶16

I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶17

From perusal of the order, it transpires that sale-deed was executed by plaintiff on 04.05.2001 in favour of defendant. The finding has been recorded by both courts below that sale-deed was executed and the loan was repaid by defendant.

¶18

The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8971 of 2010 (Kripa Ram (deceased) through Legal Representatives and others vs. Surendra Deo Gaur and others , decided on 16.11.2020 has held that the second appeal can be dismissed without even formulating the substantial question of law. Relevant paras 25 and 26 reads as under :

¶19

"25. In a judgment reported as Ashok Rangnath Magar v. Shrikant Govindrao Sangvikar (2015) 16 SCC 763 , this Court held that the second appeal can be dismissed without even formulating the substantial question of law. The Court held as under:

¶20

"18. In the light of the provision contained in Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure and the ratio decided by this Court, we come to the following conclusion: (i) On the day when the second appeal is listed for hearing on admission if the High Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved, it shall dismiss the second appeal without even formulating the substantial question of law;

¶21

(ii) In cases where the High Court after hearing the appeal is satisfied that the substantial question of law is involved, it shall formulate that question and then the appeal shall be heard on those substantial question of law, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the Respondent;

¶22

(iii) In no circumstances the High Court can reverse the judgment of the trial court and the first appellate court without formulating the substantial question of law and complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure." 26. In view of the above findings, we do not find any error in the judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the Second Appeal. The present appeal is thus dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."

¶23

In view of finding recorded by both courts below, no case for interference is made out. No substantial question of law arises to be adjudicated herein.

¶24

The second appeal is dismissed.

¶25

October 29, 2025 V.S.Singh

¶26

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mubarak Ali (Deceased) and 6 Others v. Ram Autar Gupta and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubarak Ali (Deceased) and 6 Others v. Ram Autar Gupta and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases