The High Court of Uttarakhand summarily dismissed a second appeal against a civil decree dismissing a suit for possession, finding no substantial question of law involved regarding land ownership.
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. 99 of 2012 with Stay Application No. 11018 of 2012
……………...... Appellants
Versus
Satya Pal S/o Shri Amar Chand R/o Bus Station Karanprayag District Chamoli
………......................Respondent
Shri D.C.S.Rawat, Advocate, present for the appellants. Shri R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate, present for the respondent.
Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
2
Heard on admission.
(2) This second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 31.07.2012 passed by District Judge, Chamoli, in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2011, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court (Civil Judge Senior Division, Chamoli) in Civil Suit No. 38 of 1987.
(3) Learned counsel for the appellants (plaintiffs) argued that the courts below have erred in law in holding that the defendant is owner of the land in question measuring one Nali and ignored the fact that in the sale deed only 12 feet x 12 feet was transferred by the plaintiff 's father.
(4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant/respondent submitted that since the land was a hilly terrain as such, only after raising the columns from the river side, the actual area of the room was 12 feet x 12 feet and there is no illegality committed by the trial court.
(5) The defendant's name was found recorded in the public record as owner of the land on the basis of the deed executed by the plaintiff. The trial court as well as
3
lower appellate court has recorded concurrent finding of fact after appreciating the entire evidence on record. The plaintiffs (present appellants) have filed the suit with the pleading that the defendant was inducted as tenant in the property in question, but the same was found not proved by the courts below and the suit for possession was dismissed.
(6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below and other papers on record, this Court finds that there is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal.
(7) Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 11018 of 2013 stands disposed of).
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
Dt.02.04.2013
N.P
Basanti Devi
Harish Chandra Purohit
Girish Chandra Purohit
Satya Pal
Prafulla C. Pant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
