Back
2005 Supreme(UK) 390
2006 (1) U.D., 250
High Court of Uttaranchal
Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Desh Raj.......... … Plaintiff
Vs.
Dharam Veer Singh and others………Defendants
Second Appeal no. 22 of 2003
Decided on : 08-09-2005.
Dr. Meera Agarwal, Sri K.N. Joshi and Sri Jagdish Prasad; Advocates for the appellant.
Sri Lok Pal Singh and Sri Sudhir Chaudhary, Advocates for the respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of admissions, the evaluation of revenue court judgments, and the right to seek injunction against interference with possession.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure - Land Dispute - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, V.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 10, 17-21, 115, 330, 331 - The court discussed the admission of possession, rights, and title, the binding nature of revenue court judgments, injunction against interference with possession, and the evaluation of concurrent findings of fact.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a tenure holder, filed a suit for injunction against the defendant, alleging an agreement to sell land and possession of the disputed plot. The trial court dismissed the suit, which was upheld in the lower appellate court, leading to the second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's admission of possession and the plaintiff's evidence established possession. It also ruled on the binding nature of revenue court judgments and the plaintiff's right to seek injunction against interference with possession. The court held that the lower courts' findings were against the evidence and reversed the judgment, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues involved the admission of possession, the binding nature of revenue court judgments, the right to seek injunction against interference with possession, and the evaluation of concurrent findings of fact.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the defendant's admission of possession, the evaluation of revenue court judgments, the right to seek injunction against interference with possession, and the reversal of lower courts' findings against the evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and decree were set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed for injunction against the defendant.
This second appeal, preferred under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-02-2003, passed in Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2000 by learned A8ditional District Judge / III Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the said appeal is dismissed and judgement and decree dated 24-07-2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 244 of 1997 passed by learned trial court was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case, are that appellant (plaintiff) is tenure holder and resident of Village Sakalniya, Tehsil Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. According to plaint case, the defendant Dharam Veer Singh, on 02-12-1988 executed an agreement in favour of plaintiff to sell land measuring 05 Bighas in respect of plot No. 188/3, 11 Bighas 10 Biswa in respect of plot No. 193/1 M, 10 Bighas in respect of plot No. 193/2, 09 Bighas in respect of plot No. 193/2 M, and 10 Bighas 3 Biswa in respect of plot No. 193/3 (total land measuring 45 Bighas 13 Biswa) of the aforesaid village. The said agreement was registered before the Sub Registrar, Bazpur. It is pleaded by the plaintiff (appellant) that he Is in possession of these plots since then. The dispute relates to the plot No. 188/3regarding which it is pleaded that by mistake it was mentioned as plot No. 188/5 in the agreement. It is further pleaded that as soon as the mistake was detected, on 27-06-1989, a rectification eldorsement was got recorded in a stamp paper, in which the defendant Dharam Veer Singh clarified that It was plot No. 188/3, agreed to be sold, which was by mistake mentioned as 188/5 in the agreement, and possession of said land too has been delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that in plot No. 188/3 his tube well is installed in a small room of 8 feet x 8 feet apart from his 07 Eucalyptus, 50 Sheesham and 2 Babool trees standing thereon. The defendant, taking advantage of c1erical'f11istake in the agreement, now wants to trespass over the aforesaid land in dispute, though earlier in a suit No. 53 of 1989 filed by one Ashok against the present plaintiff in respect of disputed land, the defendant Dharam Veer Singh filed an affidavit that he has sold 05 Bigha land of plot No. 188/3. It is also alleged that the Advocate Commissioner also, on inspection found the possession of the plaintiff over the plot in question. On 02-12-1997 defendant alongwith his relatives made attempt to take forcible possession of the disputed land. In the circumstances the plaintiff instituted the suit for injunction against defendant, restraining him and his family members from taking forcible possession, or interfering In possession of the plaintiff in respect of land measuring 05 Bigha of plot No. 188/3.
3. The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement wherein execution of agreement of sale in respect of disputed land is denied. It is also denied that the defendant delivered possession of the land of plot No. 188/3 to the plaintiff. It is also not admitted to the defendant that he signed rectification on any stamp paper. As to the alleged affidavit filed in suit No. 53 of 1989, it is pleaded by the defendant that he was not a party to said suit. Denying possession of plaintiff over the land in suit, it has been further pleaded that in fact defendant was recorded in revenue records in Class-4 (Varg-4) in respect of plot No. 188/3 and had no right to sell said land. The alleged rectification deed has been challenged on the ground that the same is not a registered document. Alleging that the defendant had a litigation with father of the plaintiff, earlier in civil suit No. 69 of 1978, an appeal arising thereof was still pending in the High Court at the time of institution of the present suit. Lastly, it is pleaded in the written statement that the agreement of sale in question is void and the suit is barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
4. Learned trial court, after framing the issues, recording the
