Disposed¶13

Renu Tripathi and Another v. Sri. Subedar Shatrohan Maurya and Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2026SAPL/134/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Second Appeal No. 134 of 2024, Renu Tripathi & Anr. v. Sri. Subedar Shatrohan Maurya & Ors.; order dated 06.04.2026 by Prashant Kumar, J. Adjournment order: matter listed on 24.07.2026; earlier interim order to continue till next date of listing. Counsel: Madhur Kant Srivastava and Neeti Singh for appellants; Madan Gopal Tripathi for respondents. No statute or precedent cited; no substantive ruling.

What did the court decide?

Adjournment granted at the request of counsel for the appellants; matter listed on 24.07.2026; interim order granted earlier to continue till the next date of listing. ¶13

Renu Tripathi and Another vs Sri. Subedar Shatrohan Maurya and Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

SECOND APPEAL No. - 134 of 2024

¶3

Renu Tripathi And Another

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sri. Subedar Shatrohan Maurya And Others

¶7

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Madhur Kant Srivastava, Neeti Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Madan Gopal Tripathi

¶8

Court No. - 20

¶9

HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶10

Heard Shri Madhur Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. None is present for the caveator.

¶11

The instant second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated February 26, 2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Gonda in Civil Appeal No.17 of 2018, whereby the aforesaid civil appeal filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that husband of the appellant no.1 had bought a property by means of a registered sale deed dated November 27, 2009. At the time of sale deed, the property was registered in the name of the seller namely Asharfi Lal. After execution of the sale deed, the property was mutated in the name of appellant's husband on July 13, 2015. Thereafter daughter of the seller namely Asharfi Lal filed a case claiming that the property was given to her for her maintenance and when she did not succeed to obtain any favourable order in her favour, a suit was filed by daughter of Asharfi Lal/seller on February 2, 2016 claiming that a sale deed has already been executed by her father namely Asharfi Lal in her favour way back in 2009. In this suit, compromise decree was passed. When the appellant came to know about the compromise decree,

¶13

SAPL No. 134 of 2024

¶14

¶15

the same was assailed by means of an appeal, which was dismissed on the ground that the appellant was not a party in the suit and hence the appeal is not maintainable, against which this second appeal has been filed.

¶16

In view of above, the matter requires consideration.

¶17

The second appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

¶18

"i. Whether the first appellate Court has rightly dismissed the first appeal as not maintainable treating late Pramod Kumar Tripathi the original owner and tenure holder of the property in dispute through the registered sale deed dated 27.11.2009 as "stranger" instead of "aggrieved person"?

¶19

ii. Whether the courts below can be allowed to ignore the registered sale deed dated 27.11.2009, executed by late Asharfi Lal in favour of late Pramod Kumar Tripathi in view of section 48 of Transfer of Property Act which was never cancelled or ignored by any competent court of law?

¶20

iii. Whether the alleged fraudulent sale deed alleged to be executed by late Asharfi Lal dated 03.10.2009 was not presented for registration in view of section 23 of Registration Act can be directed to be registered in the year 2016 through a decree of Mandatory injunction after a period of 7 years of the execution of alleged sale deed?"

¶21

Let notice be issued to the respondent Nos.2 to 5 returnable at an early date.

¶22

Let the record of lower court record be summoned.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants shall take steps for service on the respondents as well as summoning of the record of lower court within a week from today.

¶24

List this case on April 6, 2026.

¶25

SAPL No. 134 of 2024

¶26

¶27

It is provided that the operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.

¶28

(Prashant Kumar,J.)

¶29

January 5, 2026

¶30

Anupam S/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Renu Tripathi and Another v. Sri. Subedar Shatrohan Maurya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Tripathi and Another v. Sri. Subedar Shatrohan Maurya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Baburam Vs Sabhajeet and Ors.

Ratipal Singh and Antoher Vs Ashish Pratap Singh and Ors.

Gokaran Vs Ramdas

Kallu @ Kallu Khan vs Abdul Latif @ Chunna

Mrs. Pushpa vs Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Manager Branch Office Lko. and 2 Others

Suman Singh and Another vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Branch Manager and 3 Others