The High Court of Uttarakhand held that there is no substantial question of law involved in a second appeal concerning possession of property based on partition. The appeal was dismissed summarily.
Second Appeal dismissed summarily; Stay Application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Appeal No. 19 of 2012 with Stay Application No. 1651 of 2012
…................Appellants
Versus
………......................Respondents
Ms. Farida Siddiqui, Advocate, present for the appellants.
Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Heard.
2
(2) This second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 07.02.2012 passed by Additional District Judge/IIIrd Fast Track Court, Nainital, in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2010, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2010 passed by the trial court (Civil Judge Junior Division, Nainital) in Suit No. 18 of 2007.
(3) Perusal of the impugned judgment and decree shows that the plaintiff/respondent no.1 filed a suit against the defendants for possession on the first floor of the house in question. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that she is daughter of Itwari Lal, original owner of the property. It is also pleaded that Itwari Lal during his life time partitioned the property between the plaintiff and the defendants (both of them claims their rights through Itwari Lal). The suit was contested by the defendants (present appellants), but the trial court as well as the lower appellate court has given concurrent findings of fact as to the right of the plaintiff, and also regarding partition of property by Itwari Lal, and her entitlement to the possession of her share, on the first floor of the house in question.
(4) There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal.
3
(5) Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 1651 of 2012 stands disposed of).
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
Dt.06.05.2013
N.P
1 issue framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law is involved requiring the Second Appeal to be heard on merits.
Ramphal
Kishan Kripal
Satpal
Shyamwati
Maya
Pant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
