DEVKI NANDAN Vs. RADHEY SHYAM

LAWS(ALL)-2002-1-242

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Decided on January 24,2002

DEVKI NANDAN Appellant

VERSUS

RADHEY SHYAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants. This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff respondent over the land in dispute. In brief, it was pleaded that the plaintiff respondent was owner -in -possession of the land in dispute and the defendant appellants were illegally interfering in his possession. The suit filed by the plaintiff respondent was contested by the defendant appellants, who have denied the title of the plaintiff respondent and asserted that the plaintiff was neither the owner nor in possession of the land in dispute. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed relevant issues. The parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The trial Court after perusing the material on record, recorded findings on the relevant questions in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant appellants. It was held that the plaintiff respondent was owner -in -possession of the land in dispute and the defendants had no right to interfere in his possession. Having recorded the said findings, the suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 29.9.1988. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, a civil appeal was filed by the defendant -appellants before the Court below. The Court below has framed two questions for consideration in the appeal, which are quoted below: - - 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is illegal and liable to be set aside for not framing necessary issues in this case?
(2.) WHETHER plaintiff is the owner and in possession of disputed land? 2. The Court below after hearing the parties and after perusing the material on record by judgment and decree dated 29.9.2001 specifically held that all necessary issued which arose out of the pleadings of the parties were framed, therefore, on this ground the judgment and decree passed by the Court below cannot be said to be illegal. Even on the second question, the Court below has recorded clear and categorical findings to the effect that the plaintiff was owner -in -possession of the land in dispute. The findings recorded by the Court below are all findings of fact, which are based on the evidence on record. No substantial questions of law is involved in the present second appeal. It may also be noted that learned counsel for the appellants has not framed any substantial question of law in the memo of appeal as required under Section 100 read with Order XLI, C.P.C. The appeal is accordingly dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11, C.P.C.;

Click here to view full judgement.