SUBHAGA Vs. SHOBHA
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-55
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on July 07,2006

SUBHAGA Appellant
VERSUS
SHOBHA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SADHAN CHANDRA BAL VS. SWAPAN DATTA [LAWS(TRIP)-2014-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY KUMAR VS. GANPATI [LAWS(CHH)-2021-6-74] [REFERRED TO]
RANJEET KHANNA VS. CHIRAGU DEEN [LAWS(HPH)-2014-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHUPANDIAN VS. GANESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2021-6-169] [REFERRED TO]
SELVANATHA ROCK VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-59] [FOLLOWED ON]
GUPTA HOTEL, BALLABGARH, PROPRIETOR NEKI RAM GUPTA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2009-2-78] [REFERRED TO]
D SIVAKALAI VS. DHAYAN BASHA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-602] [REFERRED TO]
BHUVAN SRIVAS, S/O LAKHAN LAL SRIVAS VS. NARENDRA SINGH RAJPUT [LAWS(CHH)-2016-5-26] [REFERRED]
SAU.VARSHA VS. GHANSHYAM [LAWS(BOM)-2020-1-362] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU ANANT DESSAI VS. GOVIND VITHAL SAWANT [LAWS(BOM)-2020-8-153] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD VS. RAM NIRANJAN [LAWS(ALL)-2011-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
R MOHANKUMAR VS. JANAKI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-209] [REFERRED TO]
KUNWER RAJ SINGH VS. SMT. KADAMBARI DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2011-5-84] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDLOK WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2024-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR VS. RAM NARAYAN [LAWS(CHH)-2019-7-211] [REFERRED TO]
SAJAL KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. DISTRICT JUDGE BALLIA & 14 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-301] [REFERRED]
B VIJAYA VS. SUBBIAH REDDIAR [LAWS(MAD)-2012-3-154] [REFERRED TO]
P SANKARAN VS. R SOMANATHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2014-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
S. UTTAMCHAND VS. R. ANJUGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2012-6-380] [REFERRED TO]
KASTHURI VS. BHASKAR [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-239] [REFERRED TO]
JEEVAN RAM JEENGAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-5-143] [REFERRED TO]
SNEHI MANDAL CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VS. GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(GJH)-2022-10-642] [REFERRED TO]
KOMMALAPATI MADHAVI VS. BYRAPUNENI VIJAYA LAKSHMI [LAWS(APH)-2022-9-84] [REFERRED TO]
ASHIS KUMAR JANA VS. NITYAGOPAL JANA & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-12-182] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAM VS. SELVAN ALIAS SELVAM [LAWS(MAD)-2012-1-452] [REFERRED]
TOPWELL PROJECTS CONSULTANTS LTD. VS. PREM W/O LALLURAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-5-57] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHANDRA BARBAR VS. MEWAR AAANCHLIK GRAMIN BANK [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH S/O SHRI ACHAL SINGH AND ORS VS. RAMESHWAR PRASAD (SINCE DIED) S/O LATE SHRI CHANDRABHAN AND ORS [LAWS(UTN)-2013-8-162] [REFERRED]
SUSHILA DEVI VS. TRILOK SINGH [LAWS(UTN)-2011-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
KORBIHA S/O MANIRAM VS. SAMMELAL S/O MOHARSAI [LAWS(CHH)-2016-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
J. PACHHUNGA VS. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
DONNAPPA VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [LAWS(KAR)-2022-11-472] [REFERRED TO]
MALATI DEB VS. HASINA KHATUN [LAWS(GAU)-2012-1-75] [REFERRED TO]
GIRDHARILAL DINDAYAL AGARWAL & ANR. VS. M/S. SARVODAYA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-84] [REFERRED TO]
RAMISETTY VENKATANNA VS. NASYAM JAMAL SAHEB [LAWS(SC)-2023-4-130] [REFERRED TO]
SELLI GOUNDER VS. MASAIYAPPA GOUNDER [LAWS(MAD)-2017-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR NIGAM BAREILLY VS. RAM BHAROSE LAL DHARMARTH TRUST [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-99] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA PRAKASH TIWARI AND ORS. VS. SHANTI DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-223] [REFERRED TO]
SOVA RANI BHAKAT VS. SEFALI CHAKRABORTY [LAWS(CAL)-2011-1-152] [REFERRED TO]
ANNAMALAI MUDALIAR VS. KRISHNA MUDALIAR [LAWS(MAD)-2021-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
LAB BAHADUR TIWARI VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (ROOM NO.2) AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2007-5-433] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH VS. SARDAR SWARN SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-229] [REFERRED TO]
DR. JAYASHEELA VENU VS. A.J.F.DSOUZA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDILAL AHIR VS. TEJRAM AHIR AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-217] [REFERRED TO]
GYANCHAND JAIN VS. NARENDRASINGH RAJPUT & ANR. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-5-21] [REFERRED]
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2010-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
PERIASAMY VS. NAINAMALAI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-330] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUVIR KASHINATH KERKAR VS. DRAKSHAYANI VISHWANATH KERKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2023-10-113] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This Appeal by Special Leave is by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff in O.S. No.1326 of 1957 on the file of the Munsif, Mohammadabad Gobarn at Azamgarh. The suit was one for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants in the suit to demolish further constructions put up by them and to fill up a well dug by them in the property claimed to belong to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed title and possession over the suit property which was described in the plaint and got demarcated in a sketch. The claim of the plaintiff was that the construction had been put up in plot No. 1301/1 Ba in Village Sarhan Kolla Pargana Mahal, District Azamgarh. The defendants resisted the suit essentially on a plea that the constructions put up by them did not lie in plot No. 1301. They, of course, denied the title and possession claimed by the plaintiff over the portions in which the constructions and the well stood.
(3.)The suit had a chequered career. There were repeated remands of the suit. What is seen is that ultimately the question boiled down to that of identification of the suit property with reference to the disputed portion. Ultimately, in the present round, the trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land which had been identified on the spot and was hence entitled to the reliefs claimed. An appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed holding that the disputed constructions lay in the suit property described in the plaint, that the plaintiff had title to it and that the trial court was hence right in decreeing the suit. Thus, the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed. The defendants filed a Second Appeal before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court upheld the finding rendered by the courts below that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of plot No. 1301/1 Ba. The High Court found that there was no illegality in the approach made by the courts below in arriving at that finding and the finding was based on the evidence on record. But in spite of this finding, the High Court reversed the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and dismissed the suit on a finding that there was no proper identification of the suit property by the plaintiff either in the plaint or at the spot and since the boundaries cannot be ascertained without surveying the adjoining plots, no decree could be granted to the plaintiff as was done by the courts below. The Second Appeal was thus allowed and the suit was dismissed. This is challenged in this appeal by the legal representatives of the plaintiff.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.