- (1.) Heard Sri Prashant Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Counsel for respondents No. 3/1 and 3/2. Petitioner's S.C.C. Suit No. 99 of 1987 filed against Bachha Lal, respondent No. 3 (now deceased and substituted by legal heirs i.e., respondents No. 3/1 and 3/2) on the ground that she is landlady and owner of property in dispute and respondent No. 3 has committed default in payment of rent was dismissed by Trial Court vide judgment dated 7.1.2000 holding that firstly, petitioner has failed to prove herself as owner of the property in dispute and relationship of 'landlord' and 'tenant' between her and respondent No. 3 could not be proved and secondly, since there is no relationship of 'landlord' and 'tenant', question of default in payment of rent also does not arise. The aforesaid judgment of Trial Court has been confirmed in revision vide judgment dated 20.9.2005 by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Allahabad by dismissing petitioner's Civil Revision No. 183 of 2000.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to an oral gift, petitioner became owner of property in dispute but the Trial Court has found that petitioner could not prove factum of oral gift of the property in dispute in her favour and this findings of fact having not been found erroneous by Revisional Court, this Court while considering a case under Article 226/227 could not interfere particularly when this findings have not been shown perverse or contrary to record. The scope of judicial review in the matter arising out of the proceedings and judgments of the Courts below is very limited. The writ petitions under Article 226/227 in such matters have not to be taken up like a regular appeal.
(3.) Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same.;