Smt.Sarojini Singh & Anr. v. Ganga Ram Singh & Ors.

Appellant :- Smt. Sarojini Singh And Another Respondent :- Ganga Ram Singhand Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.A.H.Rizvi, Neerav Chitravanshi,R.C.Gupta, Raj Vikram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- N.C.Mehrotra, Anurag Srivastava, Aseem Chandra, Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra, Mohd Shadab Khan, Mohd. Aslam Khan, Puneet Chandra, Utsav Mishra,Z.Zilani Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Raj Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan and Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents.

The present second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.1996 passed by the 13th Additional District Judge, Lucknow in R.C.A. No. 194 of 1995 (Bhullan Singh and Anr. vs. Ganga Ram Singh and Ors.) whereby the First Appellate Court afÏrmed the judgment and decree dated 10.03.1995 passed by the IInd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow passed in Regular Suit No. 338 of 1990 (Ganga Ram Singh vs. Smt. Sarojini Singh and Ors.). The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated on 20.11.2003 on following substantial questions of law, which are quoted hereinbelow:- "(c) Whether the Court could require the plaintiff to file documents to prove his case after close of evidence, when the case was reserved for pronouncement of judgment ? (d) Whether the suit for declaration of title to the property could be decreed without substantiating the allegation of title by cogent evidence ? (i) Whether the first appellate court could consider the documents brought on records after close of evidence and that too without there being proved in evidence ?"

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the respondents in the present second appeal which was decreed in their favour by judgment and order dated 10.03.1995, against which an appeal was preferred under Section 96 of the C.P.C. which was also dismissed by the First Appellate court and afÏrmed the judgment and decree passed in the Regular Suit.

It is further submitted that the appellants are original allotee of the plot from the L.D.A. but the respondents by manipulation had obtained the decree in their favour in the Regular Suit. The learned Trial court had permitted the plaintiff to file documents to prove his case after closure of evidence, when the case was reserved for pronouncement of judgment and suit for declaration of title to the property was decreed without substantiating the allegation of title in favour of the plaintiffs who were respondents in the present appeal. The Court had gone through the judgment passed by the trial court and the appellate court and it was found that the plaintiff in support of their title had filed the evidence i.e. the documents which were considered. The appellants had not filed even a single document during the trial pending before the court of Civil Judge, Small Causes Court and in the Second Appeal, the photocopies were filed i.e. the secondary evidence without disclosing for non filing of the primary evidence as required under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

On being asked from the learned counsel for the appellants as to what were the documents filed by the plaintiff after closure of the evidence, when the case was reserved for pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel for the appellants has failed to reply the same and unable to show any documents which were taken after the closure of the evidence.

The Court has again put a query to the learned counsel for the appellants that the documents/evidence adduced by the plaintiffs for the purposes of claiming the title over the property were discussed and thereafter on the basis of evidence lead by the plaintiffs, the judgment and decree was passed in their favour, whether the appellants had disputed those documents, learned counsel for the appellants failed to demonstrate that they had disputed the documents relied by the plaintiffs for the purposes of claiming title to the property and repeatedly making submission that the photocopies were filed by the appellants before the first appellate court and the same were not considered but unable to satisfy this Court regarding Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The appellants have failed to show anything in support of the substantial questions of law as framed.

As a matter of fact the whole case depends on facts of the case as indicated above. The appellants could not point out any document which may have been filed by the petitioners/respondents after closure of the evidence hence on facts, no such questions of law as framed arise for consideration. The courts below considered and appreciated the documents/evidence to support the title filed by the petitioners/respondents and on that basis found the title of the petitioners/respondents was proved. The case is concluded by findings of facts.

In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, no interference is called for.

The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Nitesh NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench