Uma Shankar and others v. Deenanath and others), wherein appeal against the judgment and decree p
Case Details
Division), Pratapgarh, has been allowed and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant is the defendant in original suit. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment and order dated 12-05-1988, with the finding that the plaintiff is neither in possession of the disputed land nor his ownership thereon is established and proved. The plaintiff has absolutely failed to 2 SAPL No. 155 of 2024 prove his case that the disputed land is abadi land. The ahata number 49 to 53, was obtained and allocated to him in partition where the disputed land situates. Even the Commissioner's report in site plan, it is not clarified that the disputed land is land of Ahata No. 49 to 53. The plaintiff's ahata has not been proved to situate on disputed land. It is obvious that the disputed land is abadi land of defendant, pertinent to his house. The defendant's possession over the disputed land is proved. It is also proved on the basis of evidence that the plaintiff is not the owner of the disputed land situated therein. He next submits that the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial court wherein the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed, the plaintiff filed the first appeal before the court of the District Judge, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Pratapgarh, by impugned judgment and order dated 23-05-2024, and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the appellate court.
4. This is admitted fact that the disputed land is a land of abadi, which was owned by common ancestors of the parties since a long period. Learned counsel for appellant also submitted that the learned appellate court has wrongly rejected the plea of the appellant that his right over disputed had not matured under Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and given wrong findings that the possession of the plaintiff/appellant is proved since the period of the abolition of Zamindari. The plaintiffs/respondents have admitted in the plaint that they were dispossessed by defendant before filing of suit, but no relief of recovery of possession was claimed in the plaint. However, the learned appellate court has wrongly decreed the suit of plaintiff, ignoring the fact that the plaintiff was out of possession at the time of filing of suit. 3 SAPL No. 155 of 2024
5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned civil judge has wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, ignoring the evidence adduced by the parties by which the balance of probability was in favour of the plaintiff and relief of permanent and mandatory injunction was claimed by the plaintiff themselves. The disputed land belongs to common ancestors of the parties.
6. Initially, the disputed land belongs to the common ancestors of the parties which came to share and possession of the plaintiff and in the partition between the grandfathers of the parties, the disputed land came into the share of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been in long possession of the disputed property. The defendants could neither prove their case of adverse possession nor the vesting of the disputed land in their favour under Section 9 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents lastly submitted that a substantial question of law may not be framed on the basis of issues of facts. The State is not a necessary party in the suit and it is nobody's case because it is the case of the parties where the disputed land is sahan abadi land and it was owned by the common ancestors of the parties.
8. The sahan darwaja of the defendant was always towards east of the defendant's house, but the defendant is claiming the disputed land by opening a darwaja on the western side of his house.
9. The Commissioner's report also support the respondents' case, on which reliance has been placed by lower court. The claim of the respondents over disputed land is also fortified by unregistered gift deed executed by Ramvaran in favour of Boni Devi through whom the appellant inherited her property after death. Learned appellate court also 4 SAPL No. 155 of 2024 placed reliance on said document which is more than 20 years old. The said gift deed has not been cancelled by any competent court. Parties are decedent of same common ancestor.
10. The appeal is admitted on following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the suit of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession can be decided without framing an issue regarding actual possession of the parties when the plaintiff stated in the plaint itself that he was partly dispossessed from the disputed land by the defendant before filing of the suit? (ii) Whether based on the facts of the case, it was mandatory for the plaintiff to seek relief of declaration of title along with relief of injunction? (iii) Whether cogent evidence, as rightly appreciated by the trial court, was ignored by the first appellate court which resulted perversity of findings of the first appellate court's re- appreciation of evidence?
11. Admit.
12. Summon the lower court record.
13. List this case on 28.11.2025.
14. Parties are directed to maintain status quo over the disputed property and abstain from creating any third party interest therein by way of transfer. October 16, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)
Division), Pratapgarh, has been allowed and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant is the defendant in original suit. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment and order dated 12-05-1988, with the finding that the plaintiff is neither in possession of the disputed land nor his ownership thereon is established and proved. The plaintiff has absolutely failed to 2 SAPL No. 155 of 2024 prove his case that the disputed land is abadi land. The ahata number 49 to 53, was obtained and allocated to him in partition where the disputed land situates. Even the Commissioner's report in site plan, it is not clarified that the disputed land is land of Ahata No. 49 to 53. The plaintiff's ahata has not been proved to situate on disputed land. It is obvious that the disputed land is abadi land of defendant, pertinent to his house. The defendant's possession over the disputed land is proved. It is also proved on the basis of evidence that the plaintiff is not the owner of the disputed land situated therein. He next submits that the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial court wherein the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed, the plaintiff filed the first appeal before the court of the District Judge, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Pratapgarh, by impugned judgment and order dated 23-05-2024, and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the appellate court.
4. This is admitted fact that the disputed land is a land of abadi, which was owned by common ancestors of the parties since a long period. Learned counsel for appellant also submitted that the learned appellate court has wrongly rejected the plea of the appellant that his right over disputed had not matured under Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and given wrong findings that the possession of the plaintiff/appellant is proved since the period of the abolition of Zamindari. The plaintiffs/respondents have admitted in the plaint that they were dispossessed by defendant before filing of suit, but no relief of recovery of possession was claimed in the plaint. However, the learned appellate court has wrongly decreed the suit of plaintiff, ignoring the fact that the plaintiff was out of possession at the time of filing of suit. 3 SAPL No. 155 of 2024
5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned civil judge has wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, ignoring the evidence adduced by the parties by which the balance of probability was in favour of the plaintiff and relief of permanent and mandatory injunction was claimed by the plaintiff themselves. The disputed land belongs to common ancestors of the parties.
6. Initially, the disputed land belongs to the common ancestors of the parties which came to share and possession of the plaintiff and in the partition between the grandfathers of the parties, the disputed land came into the share of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been in long possession of the disputed property. The defendants could neither prove their case of adverse possession nor the vesting of the disputed land in their favour under Section 9 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents lastly submitted that a substantial question of law may not be framed on the basis of issues of facts. The State is not a necessary party in the suit and it is nobody's case because it is the case of the parties where the disputed land is sahan abadi land and it was owned by the common ancestors of the parties.
8. The sahan darwaja of the defendant was always towards east of the defendant's house, but the defendant is claiming the disputed land by opening a darwaja on the western side of his house.
9. The Commissioner's report also support the respondents' case, on which reliance has been placed by lower court. The claim of the respondents over disputed land is also fortified by unregistered gift deed executed by Ramvaran in favour of Boni Devi through whom the appellant inherited her property after death. Learned appellate court also 4 SAPL No. 155 of 2024 placed reliance on said document which is more than 20 years old. The said gift deed has not been cancelled by any competent court. Parties are decedent of same common ancestor.
10. The appeal is admitted on following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the suit of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession can be decided without framing an issue regarding actual possession of the parties when the plaintiff stated in the plaint itself that he was partly dispossessed from the disputed land by the defendant before filing of the suit? (ii) Whether based on the facts of the case, it was mandatory for the plaintiff to seek relief of declaration of title along with relief of injunction? (iii) Whether cogent evidence, as rightly appreciated by the trial court, was ignored by the first appellate court which resulted perversity of findings of the first appellate court's re- appreciation of evidence?
11. Admit.
12. Summon the lower court record.
13. List this case on 28.11.2025.
14. Parties are directed to maintain status quo over the disputed property and abstain from creating any third party interest therein by way of transfer. October 16, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)