Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jai Prakash v. Purshottam - SECOND APPEAL No. 888 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14356 (22 August 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 27

Second Appeal No. 888 of 2007

 Jai Prakash                                                       ------- Defendant/Appellant


 Purshottam                                                       ------- Plaintiff/Respondent


Hon. Pankaj Mithal, J.

Heard Sri Ram Jee Saxena and Sri B. Malik, learned counsel for the parties.

The plaintiff-respondent Purshottam  had filed Original Suit No. 358 of 1998 for permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of land Khasra No. 462,  area 6 Biswa 6 Biswansi situate in village Kinna Nagar, Pargana Tahsil, District Meerut. The aforesaid suit was filed on the allegations that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner in possession of the suit land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 4.8.1966 executed by one Ram Swarup. On the other hand the defendant-appellant claimed that he has purchased the said land from one Gaurav Chaudhari vide sale deed dated 4.10.1994. The said Gauvar Chaudhari had purchased the suit land from Ram Swarup vide sale deed dated 1.10.1994.

The trial court vide judgment and order dated 12.1.2005 dismissed the appeal holding that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner of the suit land and the defendant-appellant has no right over it. The appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant was also dismissed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 21.7.2007. Hence this second appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the courts below have erred in law in holding the plaintiff-respondent to be the owner of the suit land. The said finding has been recorded simply by considering the title of the defendant-appellant. I have perused the judgment and orders of the Courts below. Undisputedly, one Ram Swarup was the owner of the suit land. He had transferred all his rights over the suit land in favour of the plaintiff-respondent vide sale deed dated 4.8.1966. This sale deed is not in dispute. It is not even the case that the suit land was not the subject matter of transfer vide the aforesaid sale deed. There was some litigation between the parties with regard to part of the aforesaid land, therefore, the original suit No. 610 of 1978 (Dharampal Vs. Smt Ramo and others) was instituted. The said suit was ultimately decided on 26.1.1982 on the basis of the compromise. The said compromise was duly signed by the plaintiff-respondent and Ram Swarup. In the said compromise it was decided that since Ram Swarup is in possession of the land situate on the northern side of the Rasta, he may remain in possession of the same and shall continue to use the Rasta. In the said compromise the said Ram Swarup was only given the right to remain in possession as a mere licensee. There is nothing on record to establish that Ram Swarup continued to be in possession of the said part of the land as an owner after the execution of the sale deed dated 4.8.1966. Once Ram Swarup had ceased to be the owner and was in occupation of the suit land as a mere licensee, he had no right to transfer the same in favour of the Gaurav Chaudhri vide sale deed dated 1.10.1994. Accordingly, Gaurav Chaudhari also had no right to further transfer it in favour of the defendant-appellant vide sale deed dated 4.10.1994.

In view of the above, the Courts below rightly held that at defendant-appellant had no right title or interest in the suit land which has been purchased by the plaintiff-respondent from the original owner Ram Swarup vide sale deed dated 4.8.1966.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any error or illegality in the findings recorded by the Courts below on issue no. 1 and in holding that the plaintiff-respondent to be the owner in possession of the suit land.

No substantial question of law as such arises in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Dt. 22.8.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.