High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The instant second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lakhimpur Kheri in Regular Appeal No.16/2022, whereby the plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Lakhimpur Kheri in Original Civil Suit No.44/2014, as a consequences, the suit preferred by the appellants for injunction was dismissed. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiffs-appellants is a recorded tenure holder of Plot No.743, measuring 0.389, situate in Village Kukara, District Kheri. On the southern side of the plot in question, the Plot No.741 exists which belongs and vests with the State Government. It was the case of the appellants that the defendants No.1 to 8, who claimed to have been granted the lease by the defendant No.9 State was interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs-appellants. In the aforesaid circumstances, a suit for permanent injunction came to be filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any disturbance in the possession of the plaintiffs-appellants. The record indicates that initially the case came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants, however, the said judgment was assailed by the State by filing a regular appeal before the District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.31 of 2018, which was allowed on 22.11.2018 and the matter was remanded to the trial Court to decide the matter afresh. It is in furtherance thereof, after hearing the parties, by means of the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2022 the trial Court dismissed the suit noticing that there was no clear boundaries or area indicated by the plaintiffs and it was an admitted case that on the southern side, the Plot No.741 exists which belonged to the State, hence, in absence of clear area or demarcation, the injunction was refused. The plaintiffs-appellants assailed the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2022 by filing a regular civil appeal which was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.16 of 2022 and the first appellate Court also by means of its judgment and decree dated 17.03.2025 affirmed the findings of the trial Court while dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs-appellants. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in the plaint, the boundary was duly mentioned and it was an admitted case that the plaintiffs were the owner in possession of the Plot No.743 and in such circumstances, there was no difficulty either for the trial Court or the first appellate Court to have granted the injunction. In the given circumstances, by refusing it, the two Courts have committed an error. It is also urged that an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed by the Court, who had submitted its report indicating the boundaries which matched the boundaries as given by the plaintiffs in the plaint and to that extent the suit of the plaintiffs ought to have been decreed. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that the two Courts have committed an error prodding the plaintiffs-appellants to approach this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and also from perusal of the material on record, apparently, it is not disputed that the plaintiffs were recorded owner of the Plot No.743. It is also not disputed by the appellants that in the southern side, the Plot No.741 exists and it belongs to the State. So far as the plea of injunction is concerned, the plaintiffs fro such a remedy must not only establish the possession, but also indicate with certainty, the land with its boundaries and area to establish its prima-facie case and whether there had been any unlawful encroachment or attempt thereto by the defendants. It is also not denied that the disputed property is an agricultural /open piece of land. In such circumstances, unless and until proper boundaries as demarcated therein, there could be no evidence by which the actual possession over the existing area belonging to the plaintiffs could be ascertained. In these circumstances both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court refused to interfere. This Court having taken note of the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court finds that both the Courts have come to the conclusion that in absence of the proper dimensions and boundaries indicating area as well as the the case of the plaintiffs for injunction could not be made out. In this context, the suit for injunction could not be decreed. This Court finds that there is no palpable error in the said findings. Since prima-facie, there is no dispute regarding the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the Plot No.743 as well as the area which is mentioned in the khatauni (the records of right), this Court is of the view that in order to resolve the controversy, the plaintiffs have a better remedy of getting their land demarcated, they have an alternate and efficacious remedy in terms of Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, the Code, 2006). It is in this view of the matter, since the appellants has an efficacious and alternate remedy in terms of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant second appeal, which is dismissed at the admission stage as no substantial question of law arise. However, without prejudice to the above observations, the rights of the appellants shall not be affected and it shall be open for the appellants to seek remedy in terms of Section 24 of the Code, 2006. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The instant second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lakhimpur Kheri in Regular Appeal No.16/2022, whereby the plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Lakhimpur Kheri in Original Civil Suit No.44/2014, as a consequences, the suit preferred by the appellants for injunction was dismissed. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiffs-appellants is a recorded tenure holder of Plot No.743, measuring 0.389, situate in Village Kukara, District Kheri. On the southern side of the plot in question, the Plot No.741 exists which belongs and vests with the State Government. It was the case of the appellants that the defendants No.1 to 8, who claimed to have been granted the lease by the defendant No.9 State was interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs-appellants. In the aforesaid circumstances, a suit for permanent injunction came to be filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any disturbance in the possession of the plaintiffs-appellants. The record indicates that initially the case came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants, however, the said judgment was assailed by the State by filing a regular appeal before the District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.31 of 2018, which was allowed on 22.11.2018 and the matter was remanded to the trial Court to decide the matter afresh. It is in furtherance thereof, after hearing the parties, by means of the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2022 the trial Court dismissed the suit noticing that there was no clear boundaries or area indicated by the plaintiffs and it was an admitted case that on the southern side, the Plot No.741 exists which belonged to the State, hence, in absence of clear area or demarcation, the injunction was refused. The plaintiffs-appellants assailed the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2022 by filing a regular civil appeal which was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.16 of 2022 and the first appellate Court also by means of its judgment and decree dated 17.03.2025 affirmed the findings of the trial Court while dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs-appellants. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in the plaint, the boundary was duly mentioned and it was an admitted case that the plaintiffs were the owner in possession of the Plot No.743 and in such circumstances, there was no difficulty either for the trial Court or the first appellate Court to have granted the injunction. In the given circumstances, by refusing it, the two Courts have committed an error. It is also urged that an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed by the Court, who had submitted its report indicating the boundaries which matched the boundaries as given by the plaintiffs in the plaint and to that extent the suit of the plaintiffs ought to have been decreed. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that the two Courts have committed an error prodding the plaintiffs-appellants to approach this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and also from perusal of the material on record, apparently, it is not disputed that the plaintiffs were recorded owner of the Plot No.743. It is also not disputed by the appellants that in the southern side, the Plot No.741 exists and it belongs to the State. So far as the plea of injunction is concerned, the plaintiffs fro such a remedy must not only establish the possession, but also indicate with certainty, the land with its boundaries and area to establish its prima-facie case and whether there had been any unlawful encroachment or attempt thereto by the defendants. It is also not denied that the disputed property is an agricultural /open piece of land. In such circumstances, unless and until proper boundaries as demarcated therein, there could be no evidence by which the actual possession over the existing area belonging to the plaintiffs could be ascertained. In these circumstances both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court refused to interfere. This Court having taken note of the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court finds that both the Courts have come to the conclusion that in absence of the proper dimensions and boundaries indicating area as well as the the case of the plaintiffs for injunction could not be made out. In this context, the suit for injunction could not be decreed. This Court finds that there is no palpable error in the said findings. Since prima-facie, there is no dispute regarding the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the Plot No.743 as well as the area which is mentioned in the khatauni (the records of right), this Court is of the view that in order to resolve the controversy, the plaintiffs have a better remedy of getting their land demarcated, they have an alternate and efficacious remedy in terms of Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, the Code, 2006). It is in this view of the matter, since the appellants has an efficacious and alternate remedy in terms of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant second appeal, which is dismissed at the admission stage as no substantial question of law arise. However, without prejudice to the above observations, the rights of the appellants shall not be affected and it shall be open for the appellants to seek remedy in terms of Section 24 of the Code, 2006. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench