The court affirmed that procedural rules should facilitate justice, allowing for the admission of correction deeds and maintaining suits for injunction without a declaration when no cloud on title is established.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Sri Ambika Prasad, learned counsel for the defendant- appellant and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri P.C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents.

2. This second appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1997 passed by Judge, Small Causes, Sitapur in Civil Appeal No.186 of 1988; Jagdeo Singh and Others Vs. Raja Ram dismissing the Regular Suit No.174 of 1984; Ram Asrey and Others Vs. Raja Ram and for maintaining the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 31.10.1988.

3. The following substantial question of law has been formulated in this second appeal.

"Whether the judgment passed by the first appellate court is perverse and illegal."

4. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that no evidence could have been adduced in regard to the correction deed made during pendency of appeal and sale deed executed by Manno Devi in favour of Ram Chandra, minor son of Babu Lal and sale deed executed by him to Chhote Lal and Smt. Lalti Devi without amendment in the plaint and the same could not have been considered and no presumption also could have been drawn in regard to registered sale deed executed by Smt. Manno Devi and Ram Sundar in the years 1970 and 1973. He also submitted that the sale deed by Chhote Lal was not executed by him on his behalf and the correction deed executed by him could not have been considered in absence of pleadings. He further submitted that plaintiff-respondents appeared in evidence as PW-2 in place of PW-1 in violation of Order-18, Rule-3(A) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (here-in-after referred as CPC) but the first appellate court has failed to consider it. He further submitted that the possession of defendant-appellant was proved and the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was contradictory in regard to plinth and wall, which is against the plaintiff-respondents, whose possession was not proved on account of thatch of Raja Ram in east and west of his house and the land in dispute after his thatch on the east. He further submitted that the suit for injunction without prayer for declaration was not maintainable but the first appellate court has failed to consider the same and allowed the appeal without considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record, therefore the pleadings recorded by the first appellate court are perverse and illegal, thus not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside.

5. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant relied on Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs. C.P. Joshi; (2011) 11 SCC 786, Biraji @ Brijraji and Another and Another Vs. Surya Pratap and Others; (2020) 10 SCC 729, Khudawand Haiyal Qaiyoom Vs. Sabir; 2007 68 ALR 210, Ayyasami Gounder and Others Vs. T.S. Palanisami Gounder; AIR 1996 Madras 237, Marappa Gounder and Others. Vs. Sellappa Gounder And Others; AIR 1985 Madras 183, A. Andisamy Chettiar Vs. A. Subburaj Chettiar; (2015) 17 SCC 713 and Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (D) by LRS. Vs. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok and Others; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 226.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents submitted that the suit for permanent injunction was rightly and in accordance with law was filed and there was no need of prayer for declaration. There was no substantial denial of title and there was only a colourable denial of title. The objection in regard to prayer for declaration had not been taken before the court's below. The sale deed in question on the basis of which the plaintiff-respondents are owner have also not been challenged and all the sale deeds are intact. Even otherwise the earlier sale deeds of the land in dispute have also not been challenged. He further submitted that no perversity or illegality in appellate court's order could be shown. He further submitted that when the aforesaid two sale deeds were filed, the opportunity was granted on 26.08.1986 for rebuttal but there was no rebuttal, therefore the objection in this regard is not sustainable