Allahabad High Court
Smt Anaro vs Ramji Lal And 17 Others on 5 July, 2022
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 5
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 559 of 2022
Appellant :- Smt Anaro
Respondent :- Ramji Lal And 17 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Kumar Tyagi
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the appellant.
This is a plaintiff's appeal challenging the judgments and decrees dated 31.3.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.15, Meerut in Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2011 (CNR No. UPME01-006502-2011) and 15.1.2011 / 31.1.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Court No.01, Meerut in Original Civil Suit No. 461 of 1990 whereby the claim of the plaintiff for grant of a mandatory injunction to the defendant has been rejected.
The claim of the plaintiff has been rejected on the ground that he had not been able to prove his title over the suit property.
It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that admittedly the plaintiff was initially in possession over the suit property as tenant and the order of the revisional court in rent control proceedings directing the eviction of the appellant had been set-aside by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 4.9.1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 27100 of 1994. It was stated that after the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the defendant - respondent who claimed his rights over the suit property on the basis of an agreement to sale executed in his favour by the landlord dropped the proceedings before the revisional court and had forcibly got the plaintiff evicted from the suit property. It was argued that even if the plaintiff was in illegal possession of the suit property, he was entitled to protection of his possession against the whole world except the true owner. It was argued that in the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to be put in possession of the suit property and the courts below have erred in law in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff.
The arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff - appellant cannot be accepted. The suit instituted by the plaintiff was not under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and appears to have been instituted after the period prescribed in the aforesaid provision was over. Further, a perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court shows that the plaintiff had been evicted from the suit property in execution proceedings instituted for execution of the order of the revisional court while the writ petition was still pending before this Court. There is nothing on record to show that after the order dated 4.9.1996 passed by this Court, the plaintiff had filed any application for restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff was not able to prove his title over the suit property and, therefore, cannot claim any injunction against the defendant who is admittedly in possession over the suit property. The suit was also not filed against the alleged owner / landlord.
The findings recorded by the courts below are findings of facts and there is no perversity in the aforesaid findings so as to raise any substantial question of law.
There is no illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.7.2022
Satyam
