Jagdish Chandra And 15 Others vs Pramod Chandra And 11 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 8671 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 686 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Jagdish Chandra And 15 Others
 
Respondent :- Pramod Chandra And 11 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vineet Kumar Sahu
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Mohammad Yaseen
 

 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

This is a defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 6.3.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), City Jaunpur decreeing Original Suit No. 137 of 1983 as well as against the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2022 / 6.5.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge - III, Jaunpur in Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2013 whereby the lower appellate court has affirmed the decree of the trial court.

Through its decree dated 6.3.2013, the trial court had decreed the suit cancelling the sale deed dated 3.1.1963 and had also issued a permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs - respondents and also directed for recovery of possession from the defendants. The said decree has been affirmed by the lower appellate court.

It appears from the records annexed with the memo of appeal that one of the Issues framed before the trial court was as to whether the suit was barred by limitation as the suit was instituted in 1983 and the sale deed was executed in 1963. The trial court held that the suit was not barred by limitation as it came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs in 1983 and the defendants had never represented their rights on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed. While affirming the decree of the trial court, the lower appellate court has not recorded any finding on ground of limitation.

It was argued by the counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid omission by the lower appellate court vitiates its judgment. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is not acceptable. The lower appellate court has allowed the appeal after recording a finding that the sale deed of 1963 was void as the vendors of the defendants had no title over the suit property which was subject-matter of the sale deed dated 1963 in light of the fact that the plaintiffs and his predecessors were owners of the suit property on the basis of previous sale deeds executed in 1915 etc. In light of the aforesaid finding that the sale deed was void, no findings on the issue of delay was required. The appellants had never pleaded adverse possession over the suit property.

The findings recorded by the courts below are concurrent findings of facts which are based on evidence on record and I do not find any perversity in the aforesaid findings.

No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.8.2022

Satyam