Dismissed

Ram Prasad Yadav v. Sahdeo Yadav and Ors.

Patna HC20 Feb 2013SA/86/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal regarding a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the relief against the sale deeds was rightly barred by limitation and no substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose; the relief against sale deeds was barred by limitation.

Ram Prasad Yadav Vs Sahdeo Yadav and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court SA No.86 of 2011 (04) dt.20-02-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶3

Second Appeal No.86 of 2011

¶4

====================================================== Ram Prasad Yadav, Son of Late Sukar Yadav, Resident of villageHardiyabad, P.O.-Nawagarhi, P.S.- Muffasil, District-Munger. Plaintiff.. - Appellant. Versus 1. Sahdeo Yadav, Son of Late Sukar Yadav.

¶5

Janardhan Yadav, Son of Sahdeo Yadav.

¶6

Harsh Bardhan Yadav, Son of Sahdeo Yadav.

¶7

Om Prakash Yadav, Son of Sahdeo Yadav.

¶8

Ravindra Yadav, Son of Sahdeo Yadav.

¶9

Sydarshan Yadav, Son of Sahdeo Yadav. Sl.No. 1 to 6 are resident of village- Hardiyabad, P.O.-Nawagarhi, P.S.-

¶10

Muffasil, District-Munger-Defendants-Respondents-Respondents 1^st Set.

¶11

Kishun Sao, Son of Late Kartick Sao. Resident of village- Hardiyabad, P.O.-Nawagarhi, P.S.- Muffasil,

¶12

District-Munger .-Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 2^nd set.

¶13

Lakshmi Yadav, Son of Ashsrfi Yadav, Resident of villageHardiyabad, P.O.-Nawagarhi, P.S.- Muffasil, District-Munger. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 3^rd set.

¶14

Ram Deo Sah, Son of Tetar Sao, Resident of village & P.O.- Nawagarhi, P.S.- Muffasil, District-Munger.-Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 4^th set. 10. Banarsi Yadav, Son of late Fagu Yadav. 11. Raso Yadav, Son of Late Fagu Yadav.

¶15

Sl.No. 10 to 11 are resident of village- Toufir, P.O.- Bsudeopur, P.S.Muffasil, District-Munger. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 5^th set. 12. Muni Lal Yadav, Sonof Rajju Yadav. 13. Baleshwar Yadav, Son of Rajju Yadav.

¶16

Sl . No. 12 to 13 are Resident of village-Hardiyabad, P.O.-Nawagarhi, P.S.- Muffasil, District-Munger. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 6^th set. 14. Krishna Yadav, Son of Late Mahadeo Yadav, Resident of villageKolhachak, P.O.-Shakund, P.S.- Shakund, District-Bhgalpur. . Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 7^th set. 15. Yoga Sao , son of Chhote Sao, Resident of village- Nawagarhi, Kantpur, P.O.-Nawagarhi, P.S.-Naya Ram Nagar, District-Munger. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 8^th set. 16. Shankar Yadav, Son of Ram Prasad Yadav, Resident of villageHardiyabad, P.O.-Nawagarhi, P.S.- Muffasil, District-Munger. Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 7^th set.

¶17

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

¶18

For the Appellant/s : Dr. Kislay, Adv. Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Adv.

¶19

For the Respondents 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd set: Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr.Adv. Mr. Prashant Sinha , Adv. ======================================================

¶20

Patna High Court SA No.86 of 2011 (04) dt.20-02-2013

¶21

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶23

04 20-02-2013

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents is also present.

¶25

The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession in case of dispossession. The further relief has been sought for declaring the sale deeds mentioned in the relief portion of the plaint to be illegal, forged and void.

¶26

After considering the pleadings and evidence, the suit was decreed in part with regard to 1 ½ katha land of Plot No. 295 and 2 katha of land of Plot No.295 granting the relief of title and recovery of possession as to that extent to the plaintiff. However, the suit was dismissed with regard to the other reliefs. The plaintiff filed appeal against the part decree. The appellate court, on reappraisal of the evidence affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court also holding that the relief with regard to the sale deeds is barred by limitation.

¶27

Nothing could be produced or established before this Court that the concurrent findings by the courts below are perverse and illegal. From the facts, as revealed by the impugned judgments, it further appears that the relief against the sale deeds is barred by limitation and has been rightly held so in the facts of

¶28

Patna High Court SA No.86 of 2011 (04) dt.20-02-2013

¶29

the case. There is thus no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. (V. Nath, J) Nitesh/-

Ram Prasad Yadav v. Sahdeo Yadav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad Yadav v. Sahdeo Yadav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deo Nandan Mahto Vs Ram Nandan Mahto

Sukhdeo Sharma and Anr. Vs Panna Sharma

Ramdeo Nandal and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shree Prithibi Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sholey Mandal @ Shoba Mandal Vs Smt Rekha Devi

Ramsagar Tanti and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar