Second appeal against injunction suit regarding land ownership where appellants claimed rectification of Khasra numbers. Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.
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. 122/2016
Smt. Ratan Jyoti & Another …. Appellants
Versus
D.N. Mehtani & Another .… Respondents
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, for the respondents.
Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
This second appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, viz. against the decree of the trial court dated 22.2.2012 and the affirmation of the same vide judgment of the appellate court dated 12.5.2016.
An injunction suit no. 147/2007 was preferred by the respondents herein wherein the subject matter was Khasra No. 441 and 479 having total area of 0.38 acres, viz. 2 bighas, situated in Bharuwala Grant, Cantt. Area, Claimant Town, Dehradun. The defendants disputed the ownership of the plaintiffs over the subject matter of the litigation pleading that they were not the absolute owners of such area.
I think the learned Trial Judge while adjudicating the issue no. 1 has held that the Court of District Collector has already made it clear that the land of Khasra No. 475 and 476 was purchased by the defendant Smt. Ratan Jyoti, but on account of certain mistake, the number of Khasra was recorded as 479, instead of 476. Such mistake was rectified by the Court and the name of Smt. Ratan Jyoti was directed to be recorded on Khasra No. 476, instead of 479, ad measuring 0.16 acre area. So, the learned Court below has recorded that Smt. Ratan Jyoti
2
has no concern with Khasra No. 479. All that concern she had was with Khasra No. 476, which too has already been sold by her. So, there was no basis for Smt. Ratan Jyoti to execute the power of attorney in favour of Natthu Singh to deal with the land of Khasra No. 475.
Learned Counsel of the second appellants has drawn attention of this Court towards the letter written by the Chief Executive Officer, Claimant Town, to the plaintiff D.N. Mehtani dated 17.1.2008.
I think this letter is misconceived and is liable to be rejected.
No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. It is dismissed at the threshold.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)
Prabodh
Ratan Jyoti
D.N. Mehtani
Servesh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
