High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Risal Nath v. Durga Pd. - SECOND APPEAL No. 2239 of 1975  RD-AH 13919 (13 August 2007)
SECOND APPEAL NO. 2239 OF 1975
Risal Nath ............ Defendant-Appellant
Durga Prasad Kadhalar ............ Plaintiff-Respondent
SECOND APPEAL NO. 2240 OF 1975
Risal Nath (deceased) through
his LR's ........... Plaintiff- Appellant
Durga Prasad .......... Defendant- Respondent
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
These are two connected appeals arising from Original Suit No. 983 of 1968 Risal Nath Vs. Durga Prasad and Original Suit No. 1011 of 1968 Druga Prasad Vs. Rishal Nath.
The relevant facts in brief in Original Suit No. 983 of 1968 are that that Rishal Nath filed suit for permanent injunction restraining Durga Prasad from interfering with his possession over house in dispute. The suit was filed on the allegation that he had obtained the land and the disputed house from one Rangi Lal and had constructed the house over it about 15 years ago. The house of the defendant Durga Prasad is situated to the north of the disputed house.
The Original Suit No. 1011 of 1968 was instituted by Durga Prasad that he is the owner in possession of the house shown by letters A B C D in the plaint map. Part of the house is Pakka construction and the part is the Sahan of the said house. He purchased the Sahan land vide registered sale deed dated 15.12.1951 from its owners Rangi Lal and Ramesh Chandra. He also purchased some land from Azagar Ali vide registered sale deed 23.5.1968. He re-constructed the house thereon and permitted Risal to reside therein who has declined to vacate on request.
Both the suits were consolidated by the Trial Court and common evidence was recorded with the consent of the parties and Original Suit No. 983 of 1968 Risal Nath Vs. Durga Prasad was made the leading case. The Original Suit No. 983 of 1968 was dismissed whereas the Original Suit No. 1011 of 1968 Durga Prasad Vs. Risal Nath was decreed in favour of Durga Prasad for possession over the accommodation shown by letters G F D C in the plaint map of the second suit vide common judgment and order dated 3.7.1974.
Aggrieved Risal Nath preferred two Civil Appeals being Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1974 against the decree passed in Original Suit No. 983 of 1968 and CA No. 99 of 1974 against the judgment and order passed in original suit No. 1011 of 1968 the appeals were decided by two separate judgments and orders dated 9.12.1975 by the lower appellate court and both the appeals were dismissed.
I have heard Sri A. N. Bhargav, Learned counsel for the appellant Risal Nath in both the appeals and has perused the record. No one turns up for the respondents despite list having been revised.
The only argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that Durga Prasad has failed to prove any title or ownership over the disputed land and, therefore, the Courts below have erred in dismissing his suit for permanent injunction and in decreeing the suit of Durga Prasad for possession. A perusal of the judgment and order of the lower appellate court demonstrates that the appellant Risal Nath has not produced any documentary evidence to show the manner in which he had obtained the disputed house from Rangi Lal. On the other hand Durga Prasad had acquired rights in the land and in the house in dispute vide registered sale deeds dated 15.12.1951 and 23.5.1968. The appellant Risal Nath in his testimony admitted that Durga Prasad had purchased land and from Azagar Ali vide sale deed dated 23.5.1968. There is no suggestion from his side that the said sale deed is not genuine. The municipal records also prove that the house in dispute was recorded in the name of Durga Prasad and he was paying house tax. The appellant Risal Nath admitted the above fact in his statement and further stated that he had never paid any house tax and had not even raised any objection against entries made in the municipal record. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, lower appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court that Durga Prasad is the lawful owner of the land and the house in dispute in which the appellant Risal Nath has no concern.
In view of the aforesaid concurrent findings of the courts below, I do not find any good ground for interference in this second appeal. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Dt. 13th August 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.