Ram Sumer (Deceased) Thru. Legal Representatives 1/1- Rama Shanker and Another vs Ghanshyam (Deceased) Thru. His Legal Representatives 1/1- Avnish Vishwakarma and Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ram Sumer (Deceased) Thru. Legal Representatives 1/1- Rama Shanker and Another vs Ghanshyam (Deceased) Thru. His Legal Representatives 1/1- Avnish Vishwakarma and Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal admitted on the three grounds set out in paragraph 5; notice to respondent no. 2 returnable at an early date; lower Court record to be summoned; steps to be taken within seven working days; matter listed in the week commencing 04.05.2026; interim status quo as of today in respect of the nature and possession of the property in question to be maintained by the parties till the next date of listing.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Courts below erred in law in passing the impugned order in the absence of any proof for payment of sale consideration in lieu of the sale-deed dated 13.07.2004, inasmuch as a sale-deed without consideration is a void document. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

The second appeal is admitted on the three grounds framed in paragraph 5 of the order, concerning (i) absence of proof of payment of sale consideration rendering the sale-deed dated 13.07.2004 void, (ii) non-consideration of the written statement of defendant/respondent no. 2 duly proved by his testimony, and (iii) want of possession by the defendants in terms of the sale-deed rendering it inoperative and ineffective. This is an admission of the appeal on these grounds, not a decision on the merits.

Key takeaways

As an interim measure till the next date of listing, status quo as of today in respect of the nature and possession of the property in question shall be maintained by the parties.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.; April 2, 2026) - Second Appeal No. 106 of 2026 ADMITTED on three grounds framed by the Court: (i) the learned Courts below erred in passing the impugned order without any proof of payment of sale consideration for the sale-deed dated 13.07.2004, a sale-deed without consideration being a void document; (ii) the Courts below erred in not considering the written statement of defendant/respondent no. 2 duly proved by his testimony; and (iii) the Courts below erred in passing the impugned judgment and order without considering that, for want of possession by the defendants in terms of the sale-deed dated 13.07.2004 over the disputed land, the sale-deed has become inoperative and ineffective. The appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 20.02.2026 of the Additional District Judge-I, Ambedkar Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2018 as well as the trial Court's judgment and order dated 17.01.2018 in Original Suit No. 262 of 2005. Directions: notice to respondent no. 2 returnable at an early date; lower Court record summoned; steps within seven working days; listing in the week commencing 04.05.2026; parties to maintain status quo as of today on the nature and possession of the property till the next date. No merits decided; no statute or precedent cited in the order.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

LUCKNOW

SECOND APPEAL No. - 106 of 2026

Ram Sumer (Deceased) Thru. Legal Representatives 1/1Rama Shanker And Another

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Ghanshyam (Deceased) Thru. His Legal Representatives 1/1- Avnish Vishwakarma And Others

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, Shashi Kant Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rankaj Kumar Vishwakarma

Court No. - 19

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Sri Shashi Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rankaj Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1/1 to 1/7 are present.

By means of the present appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District JudgeI, Ambedkar Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2018 in Re: Ram Sumer and others Versus Ghanshyam and others as well as the judgment and order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the learned trial Court in Original Suit No. 262 of 2005.

Precisely, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the execution of the sale-deed dated 13.07.2004 is surrounded by doubts in as much as the both defendant nos. 1 and 2 have taken two separate stands in the case. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the learned Courts below erred in law in not considering the statement of defendant no. 2- Indrasen, who was examined as D.W. 3 and the sale-deed was executed when the appellant namely Ram Sumer was unconscious and was seriously ill coupled with the fact that no sale consideration was paid in lieu of the sale-deed. It is further submitted that learned Courts below have drawn incorrect interference with regard to the payment of sale consideration to the vendor/appellant no. 1- Ram Sumer on the ground that he repaid the entire amount of loan taken from the Union Bank of India, for purchase of tractor on 14.07.2004 on the next day of the execution of the sale-deed though there is no evidence on record to indicate that the sale consideration was ever paid

SAPL No. 106 of 2026

2

to the aforesaid appellant no. 1-Ram Sumer apart from the endorsement made on the sale-deed by Sub Registrar that the amount of sale consideration was paid prior to the registration of the sale-deed.

The matter requires consideration.

The appeal is admitted on the following grounds:-

(i) Whether the learned Courts below erred in law in passing the impugned order in the absence of any proof for payment of sale consideration in lieu of the sale-deed dated 13.07.2004 in as much as a sale-deed without consideration is a void document?

(ii) Whether the learned Courts below erred in law in not considering the written statement filed by the defendant/respondent no. 2, which was duly proved by him by way of testimony.?

(iii) Whether the learned Courts below erred in law in passing the impugned judgment and order without considering that for want of possession of the defendants of the suit in terms of the saledeed dated 13.07.2004 over the land in dispute, the sale-deed has become inoperative and ineffective?

Issue notice to the respondent no. 2 returnable at an early date.

Let the lower Court record be summoned.

Steps be taken within seven working days.

List the matter in the week commencing 04.05.2026.

Till the next date of listing, status quo as of today in respect of the nature and possession of the property in question shall be maintained by the parties.

April 2, 2026 Arun

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench