IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Second Appeal No. 82 of 2012

Pooran Ram

……. Plaintiff/Appellant

versus

Shankar Datt

……. Defendant/Respondent

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff / appellant.

Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the defendant / respondent.

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

By means of present second appeal, the

plaintiff / appellant seeks to set aside the judgment and

order dated 18.06.2012 and decree dated 26.06.2012,

passed by learned District Judge, Bageshwar in civil

appeal no. 05 of 2010, Pooran Ram s/o Bachi Ram vs.

Shankar Dutt s/o Narayan Dutt and against the

judgment and decree dated 23.03.2010, passed by

learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Bageshwar in Original Suit

no. 11 of 2007, titled as Pooran Ram vs. Shankar Dutt.

2)

A suit no. 11 of 2007 for cancellation of

sale deed and possession over the suit property was

filed by plaintiff Pooran Ram against the defendant

Shankar Dutt in the court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.),

Bageshwar. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and

decree dated 23.03.2010. Aggrieved against the said

judgment and decree, plaintiff / appellant filed civil

2

appeal no. 05 of 2010 before learned District Judge,

Bageshwar. After hearing learned counsel for the

parties and having gone through the record of the case,

the appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order

dated 18.06.2012. The findings recorded by learned

trial court on 23.03.2010 were affirmed vide judgment

and order dated 18.06.2012 and decree dated

26.06.2012. Still aggrieved against the same, present

second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff /

appellant.

3)

Second appeal was admitted on the

following substantial question of law:

“Whether the findings arrived at by the trial

court as well as the lower appellate court are based

on a wrong appreciation of law?”

4)

Before that, when stay application was

pressed on behalf of the appellant for staying the

operation of the order dated 18.06.2012, passed by

appellate court (District Judge, Bageshwar) in suit no.

05 of 2010, and judgment and decree dated 23.03.2010,

passed by the trial court [Civil Judge (J.D.),

Bageshwar] in suit no. 11 of 2007, following order was

passed:

“ Brief facts, of the case, are that plaintiff has

instituted a suit for cancellation of registered sale

deed dated 03.06.1974 / 10.07.1974, executed by the

father of the plaintiff in favour of the father of the

3

defendant. The suit has been instituted in the year

2007, i.e., after more than thirty years of execution of

sale deed. Admittedly, neither father of the plaintiff

if alive, nor father of the defendant is alive. The

main ground in this appeal is that plaintiff is member

of Scheduled Caste, and his land could not have been

sold to a non-member of Scheduled Caste without

permission of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, as the

sale deed is barred by Section 157A of U.P.

Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Attention of this Court is drawn by the plaintiff /

appellant to Section 131B, 157A, and 157AA of U.P.

Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,

and it is contended that the sale deed executed by

father of the plaintiff was void. However, on going

through said provisions, this Court finds that Section

131B was inserted in the aforesaid Act vide U.P. Act

no. 19 of 1995, Section 157A was inserted in the Act

vide U.P. Act no. 20 of 1982 (w.e.f. 03.06.1981), and

Section 157AA was inserted in the Act vide U.P. Act

no. 09 of 1997 (w.e.f. 23.05.1997). As such, none of

these provisions were in existence at the time of sale

deed in question was said to have been executed by

the father of the plaintiff to the father of the

defendant. The lower appellate court has not only

found that provision relied by the plaintiff are

inapplicable to the present case but also found that

the suit was barred by tim