Shakti Singh Patel And Another vs Veer Singh And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 22257 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Reserved on 22.11.2022
 
Delivered on 21.12.2022
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 271 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Shakti Singh Patel And Another
 
Opposite Party :- Veer Singh And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Arpit Agarwal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Satyendra Kumar Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

1. This is an application filed for reviewing the judgment and order dated 06.5.2022 passed in Second Appeal No.356 of 2022.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submitted that by means of judgment dated 06.5.2022 the Court had held the suit to be not maintainable, then no finding on merit be recorded and the plaint be returned. He has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kayalulla Parambath Maidu Haji vs. Namboodiyil Vinodan 2021(6) AWC 565 SC.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the review application.

4. The applicant before this Court had filed suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession. The relief sought in the plaint was on the basis of registered Will deed dated 08.7.1954 executed by one Smt. Ram Daulati in favour of father of the plaintiffs-applicants. The trial Court as well as appellate Court had rejected the suit and the appeal.

5. During the second appeal, the counsel for the appellants could not demonstrate the fact that the Will executed by Smt. Ram Daulati was proved under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1872") by one of the attesting witness. In case of no attesting witness surviving, the procedure as laid down under Section 69 of the Act of 1872 was to be complied with, but, the plaintiff-applicant had failed to do so. The lower Appellate Court rejected the appeal repelling the argument of the plaintiffs-appellants. The present second appeal was also dismissed as there was serious dispute of title over the property in dispute and the defendants-respondents were interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs, who had filed a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor and had not claimed the relief for declaration though he has relied upon the Will deed executed in favour of their father in the year 1954, which remained unproved in view of Sections 68 and 69 of Act of 1872.

6. Further reliance placed upon decision of Apex Court is of no help to the applicants and in fact it will be read against them.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the order dated 06.5.2022 needs no interference as no ground for review is made out.

8. However, in case the applicants approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of grievance, the observation made in the judgment shall not be read against them.

9. Application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 21.12.2022

Kushal