Banwari Lal and Others v. Nazrul and Others

of 2024 and affirming the judgment dated 02.04.2024 and decree dated 08.04.2025 passed by Judicial Officer, Gram Nyayalay, Fatehpur, Barabanki dismissing the Suit No.13 of 2002 In Re: Banwari Lal and Others vs. Nazrul and Others.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as set forth by learned counsel for the appellant are that father of the appellant / plaintiff namely Shri Banwari Lal had filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Suit No. 13 of 2002 in Re: Banwari Lal vs. Nazrul and Others which was a suit for permanent injunction pertaining to the land measuring 35 by 45 sq. ft. over which a house had been built by the uncle of Shri Banwari Lal namely Shri Brijlal. The house was said to have been built after the aforesaid piece of land had been purchased by Shri Brijlal from the erstwhile Raja of Mahmudabad.

4. During pendency of the suit, Shri Banwari Lal died with the result that the appellant herein namely Ram Singh and his mother namely Smt. Ram Pyari were impleaded as legal heirs. The defendants therein (respondents herein) put in appearance and staked their claim on the land in dispute on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 23.07.1971.

5. The learned Trial court, after examining the witnesses as were led by the parties, was of the view that the plaintiff(s) had miserably failed to prove any title over the land in dispute and accordingly, dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated

02.04.2024.

6. Being aggrieved, the the father of the appellant / plaintiff filed Regular Appeal No.71 of 2024 in Re: Banwari Lal vs. Najrul which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated

06.03.2025.

7. Being aggrieved, this second appeal has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the learned trial court and the learned appellate court have failed to appreciate the Ijazatnama which has been filed by the father of the appellant namely Shri Banwari Lal both before the learned trial court and before the learned appellate court and both the courts have been swayed by the registered sale deed in favour of the defendants / respondents herein.

9. No other ground has been urged.

10. On the other hand, Shri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the learned trial court and the learned appellant court have considered threadbare the evidence as has been led by the parties before the courts. Both the courts have also appreciated that the plaintiff failed to prove any legal possession over the land in dispute rather they were claiming it on the basis of an unregistered Ijazatnama and they also did not have any sale deed with respect to the land in dispute vis-a-vis the sale deed which was produced by the defendants before the learned trial court which led the learned trial court to observe that no challenge to the said sale deed has been raised by the plaintiff and thus, considering the undisputed sale deed in favour of the defendants over the aforesaid piece of land vis-a- vis the unregistered Ijazatnama, no infirmity has been committed by both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court and as such, the suit and appeal filed by the appellant have rightly been dismissed.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. It emerges that a suit for permanent injunction had been filed by the father of the appellant namely Shri Banwari Lal with respect to the land in dispute measuring 35 by 45 sq.ft. over which a house was situated.

13. Shri Banwari Lal was claiming possession over the said piece of land and the house on the basis of an Izazatnama which had been given by the erstwhile Raja of Mahumdabad in favour of the uncle of Shri Banwari Lal namely Shri Brij Lal.

14. The defendants put in appearance and staked their claim over the land in dispute on the basis of a registered sale deed.

15. The learned trial court had examined the sale deed vis-a-vis the Ijazatnama, which incidentally was unregistered Ijazatnama, and after observing that the plaintiff has failed in raising a challenge to the aforesaid sale deed in favour of the defendants and no cognizance can be placed on an unregistered Ijazatnama, had dismissed the suit. The aforesaid findings of the learned trial court have also been affirmed with the dismissal of the appeal that has been filed by the plaintiff(s).

16. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court would indicate that although the plaintiff(s) had staked their claim over the land in dispute on the basis of the unregistered Ijazatnama yet both the learned trial and the learned appellate court have considered the registered sale deed in favour of the defendants and have also considered that the Ijazatnama, on the basis of which the plaintiffs were staking their claim over the land is dispute, is an unregistered Ijazatnama / document.

17. After examining the issues threadbare, both the learned trial court and the learned appellate court have given a conclusive finding that the defendants are the owner of the land in dispute and the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their title over the land in dispute.

18. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court, no case for interference with the orders impugned is made out. No substantial question of law arises.

19. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 S. Shivhare

of 2024 and affirming the judgment dated 02.04.2024 and decree dated 08.04.2025 passed by Judicial Officer, Gram Nyayalay, Fatehpur, Barabanki dismissing the Suit No.13 of 2002 In Re: Banwari Lal and Others vs. Nazrul and Others.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as set forth by learned counsel for the appellant are that father of the appellant / plaintiff namely Shri Banwari Lal had filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Suit No. 13 of 2002 in Re: Banwari Lal vs. Nazrul and Others which was a suit for permanent injunction pertaining to the land measuring 35 by 45 sq. ft. over which a house had been built by the uncle of Shri Banwari Lal namely Shri Brijlal. The house was said to have been built after the aforesaid piece of land had been purchased by Shri Brijlal from the erstwhile Raja of Mahmudabad.

4. During pendency of the suit, Shri Banwari Lal died with the result that the appellant herein namely Ram Singh and his mother namely Smt. Ram Pyari were impleaded as legal heirs. The defendants therein (respondents herein) put in appearance and staked their claim on the land in dispute on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 23.07.1971.

5. The learned Trial court, after examining the witnesses as were led by the parties, was of the view that the plaintiff(s) had miserably failed to prove any title over the land in dispute and accordingly, dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated

02.04.2024.

6. Being aggrieved, the the father of the appellant / plaintiff filed Regular Appeal No.71 of 2024 in Re: Banwari Lal vs. Najrul which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated

06.03.2025.

7. Being aggrieved, this second appeal has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the learned trial court and the learned appellate court have failed to appreciate the Ijazatnama which has been filed by the father of the appellant namely Shri Banwari Lal both before the learned trial court and before the learned appellate court and both the courts have been swayed by the registered sale deed in favour of the defendants / respondents herein.

9. No other ground has been urged.

10. On the other hand, Shri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the learned trial court and the learned appellant court have considered threadbare the evidence as has been led by the parties before the courts. Both the courts have also appreciated that the plaintiff failed to prove any legal possession over the land in dispute rather they were claiming it on the basis of an unregistered Ijazatnama and they also did not have any sale deed with respect to the land in dispute vis-a-vis the sale deed which was produced by the defendants before the learned trial court which led the learned trial court to observe that no challenge to the said sale deed has been raised by the plaintiff and thus, considering the undisputed sale deed in favour of the defendants over the aforesaid piece of land vis-a- vis the unregistered Ijazatnama, no infirmity has been committed by both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court and as such, the suit and appeal filed by the appellant have rightly been dismissed.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. It emerges that a suit for permanent injunction had been filed by the father of the appellant namely Shri Banwari Lal with respect to the land in dispute measuring 35 by 45 sq.ft. over which a house was situated.

13. Shri Banwari Lal was claiming possession over the said piece of land and the house on the basis of an Izazatnama which had been given by the erstwhile Raja of Mahumdabad in favour of the uncle of Shri Banwari Lal namely Shri Brij Lal.

14. The defendants put in appearance and staked their claim over the land in dispute on the basis of a registered sale deed.

15. The learned trial court had examined the sale deed vis-a-vis the Ijazatnama, which incidentally was unregistered Ijazatnama, and after observing that the plaintiff has failed in raising a challenge to the aforesaid sale deed in favour of the defendants and no cognizance can be placed on an unregistered Ijazatnama, had dismissed the suit. The aforesaid findings of the learned trial court have also been affirmed with the dismissal of the appeal that has been filed by the plaintiff(s).

16. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court would indicate that although the plaintiff(s) had staked their claim over the land in dispute on the basis of the unregistered Ijazatnama yet both the learned trial and the learned appellate court have considered the registered sale deed in favour of the defendants and have also considered that the Ijazatnama, on the basis of which the plaintiffs were staking their claim over the land is dispute, is an unregistered Ijazatnama / document.

17. After examining the issues threadbare, both the learned trial court and the learned appellate court have given a conclusive finding that the defendants are the owner of the land in dispute and the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their title over the land in dispute.

18. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court, no case for interference with the orders impugned is made out. No substantial question of law arises.

19. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 S. Shivhare