Uttarakhand High Court
SA/168/2015 on 19 February, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL. or directions
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
SA No.168 of 2015
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Heard Mr. M. S. Tyagi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kailash Chandra, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sunil Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.07.2015 passed by the court of learned District Judge, Almora in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2013 dismissing the appeal and confirming/upholding the judgment and order dated 11.07.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Almora decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent in Original Suit/Civil Case No.07 of 2005.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of the trial court and the first appellate court.
4. Initially, the suit was filed in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Almora by the plaintiff/respondent for possession. The said suit bearing no.07 of 2009 was decreed for possession by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Almora vide judgment and order dated 11.07.2013.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the defendants/appellants has drawn the attention of the Court to the disposal of Issue No.1, wherein he advanced arguments that the plaintiff/respondent has failed to prove its ownership and just on the basis of a report of Patwari concerned, the trial court has returned the finding as to the ownership of the plaintiff/respondent and decreed the suit. Thereafter, the matter was agitated in the appeal before the District Judge, Almora, who vide judgment and order dated 17.07.2015 dismissed the said appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has pointed out that at the first appellate stage, the matter was confined to only one point of determination as to whether the suit is barred by limitation?
7. Perusal of the trial court's judgment as well as the judgment of the first appellate court would reveal that there are certain questions to be gone into in this second appeal as to the ownership of Van Panchayat as to entitle it to seek possession from the defendants/appellants.
8. In such view of the matter, the second appeal is admitted to determine the following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether a suit for possession is maintainable only at the behest of true owner and the plaintiff/respondent having not established its ownership, whether courts below were justified in decreeing the suit for possession?
(ii) Whether the suit of Van Panchayat/plaintiff was within limitation?
(iii) Whether Van Panchayat/plaintiff could have filed the suit on behalf of the State Government for possession from the un-authorized occupant?
(iv) Whether a question of law, which has not been raised at the first appellate stage, can be agitated in the second appeal?
9. Since the appeal has been admitted on the aforesaid questions of law, there will be an interim order to the effect that till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the Execution Case No.06 of 2019, shall remain stayed.
10. T.C.R. be summoned.
11. List this matter on 17.04.2026.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) 19.02.2026 Akash