High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Abdul Rehman v. Anil Kumar & Others - SECOND APPEAL No. 775 of 2006  RD-AH 16169 (18 September 2006)
Court No. 24
Second Appeal No. 775 of 2006
Abdul Rehman Vs. Anil Kumar & others
HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
This second appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the lower appellate court dated 4.8.2006 whereby respondents-plaintiffs' appeal has been partly allowed decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction.
A dispute arose between the parties with regard to question of Tehbazari Nakhasa over a piece of land forming part of plots No. 397 and 398 where the weekly Haat is held on each Tuesday. It is contended that the defendants were interfering into the collection of Tehbazari Nakhasa on the pretext that the land belonging to Gaon Sabha being Plot No. 339, is also covered by the vendors of the weekly market by keeping their shops on it. This suit was contested by the appellant by filing a written statement stating that even though the aforesaid two plots belong to the plaintiff, the Tehbazari of the shops kept on the land of Plot No. 339, which belongs to Gaon Sabha, cannot be collected by him from those shopkeepers. Later on the defendants did not come to contest the suit which proceeded exparte. The suit was partly decreed and the relief for declaration and injunction was granted. The relief for declaration for holding the order of the District Magistrate dated 24.12.1996 as invalid was, however, dismissed. No appeal against the judgment of the trial court was preferred by the defendants, but the plaintiff, however, filed his appeal. The appellate court also held that the relief granted by the trial court is justified. It also did not grant the relief for declaration against the order of the District Magistrate dated 24.12.1996.
Now, the defendant-appellant, Abdul Rehman, has come up in this second appeal. The defendant No. 3, the present appellant when did not prefer appeal against the judgment of the trial court and the lower appellate court has now almost confirmed the decree of declaration and injunction granted by the trial court, there does not appear any occasion for him (defendant No. 3) to approach this Court in second appeal against the grant of the same decree in favour of the plaintiffs. However, on a perusal of the judgments of both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court, it is found that the reliefs which have been granted in favour of the plaintiffs confine to the extent of plots in dispute which admittedly belong to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. It is also not disputed that the Tuesday's Haat is held on those disputed plots also and if the plaintiffs' right to collect Tahbazari Nakhasa from the shopkeepers keeping their shops on those plots has been found to be just and proper by the courts below, this Court has absolutely no occasion rather, justification to interfere in such a decree in a second appeal.
The findings so recorded by the courts below do not give rise to any substantial question of law which may be available for decision in this second appeal by the Court. Accordingly this appeal appears to be wholly without substance and is hereby dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.