Mohan Lal vs Shiv Shanker (Deceased) and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mohan Lal vs Shiv Shanker (Deceased) and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal admitted on three framed questions of law; notice ordered to respondents No.1 to 6 (steps within one week); interim direction that parties maintain status quo over the disputed land till the next date of listing.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned courts below erred in law in passing the judgments and orders impugned in the instant appeal by complete non-application of mind, without considering the grounds of appeal and the entire evidence available on record. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

The second appeal is admitted on the three questions of law framed by the court.

Key takeaways

Notice is to be issued to respondents No.1 to 6, with steps to be taken within a period of one week.ratio¶¶16
Until the next date of listing, the parties shall maintain status quo pertaining to the land in dispute.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 5), Second Appeal No. 91 of 2025 — Mohan Lal v. Shiv Shanker (Deceased) and Others; admission order dated 6.5.2025 by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J. The appeal arises from a 1990 suit by Shiv Shankar and Ram Lutawan for permanent injunction and recovery of possession, decreed by the trial court — contended to be on cursory findings made without discussing evidence — whose defendants' appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20.03.2025. The appeal is admitted on three questions of law: (i) whether the courts below passed the impugned judgments and orders without application of mind, ignoring the grounds of appeal and the evidence on record; (ii) whether the courts below erred in relying on the Amin Commissioner's report to record a finding of possession in favour of plaintiffs/respondent No.1/1 to 1/6 despite that report being inadmissible in evidence to the extent of possession; and (iii) whether the suit ought to have been dismissed. Notice ordered to respondents No.1 to 6 (steps within one week); parties directed to maintain status quo over the disputed land until the next listing.

Court No. - 5

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 91 of 2025

Appellant :- Mohan Lal Respondent :- Shiv Shanker (Deceased) And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Mohammad Ehtesham Khan

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1 . Heard.

2 . Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Shiv Shankar and Ram Lutawan had filed a suit in the year 1990 for permanent injunction and recovery of possession with respect to certain piece of land.

3 . Learned trial court had framed various issues of which issue no.1 was as to whether the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the disputed piece of the land.

4 . Learned trial court after framing said issues has given its finding in very cursory manner without discussing evidence and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

5 . The defendants having filed an appeal the same has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20.03.2025 and hence the instant appeal.

6 . The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that once an issue had been framed by the learned trial court, it is the duty of the learned trial court to give specific findings.

7 . Perusal of the findings given by the learned counsel would indicate that the learned trial court has abruptly and cursorily given its finding on the said issue, which fact has not been appreciated by the learned appellate court and hence the instant appeal.

8 . Considering the aforesaid the appeal is admitted on the following questions of law:-

"(1) Whether the learned courts below erred in law in passing the judgments and orders impugned in the instant appeal by complete not application of mind in as much as the same have been passed without considering the grounds of appeal as well as the entire evidence available on record?

(2) Whether the learned courts below in law in relying upon the report of Amin Commissioner for recording finding of possession in favour of the plaintiffs/respondent No.1/1 to 1/6 over the property in question despite the said Amin Commissioner Report to the extent of possession was not admissible in evidence?

(3) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondent No.1/1 to 1/6 ought to have been dismissed?"

9 . Issue notice to respondents No.1 to 6. Steps to be taken within a period of one week.

10 . List on the date indicated in the notice.

11 . Till the next date of listing of the case, the parties shall maintain status quo pertaining to the land in dispute.

Order Date :- 6.5.2025

prateek

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