Ram Jatan vs Ram Baboo And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1138 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 575 of 2010
 

 
Appellant :- Ram Jatan
 
Respondent :- Ram Baboo And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shyam Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Devendra Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

This is a plaintiff's Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.4.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mirzapur dismissing Original Suit No.139 of 1987 as well as against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mirzapur dismissing Civil Appeal No.7 of 2007 filed against the decree of the trial court.

The case of the plaintiff was that he was the owner in possession of the suit property by virtue of a sale deed executed by its Zamindaar Raja Sriniwas Prasad Singh.

The defendants claim the property to be a part of 'Rang Mahal' which they purchased in auction proceedings. The courts below after considering the evidence filed by the parties have recorded a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove any interest of his predecessor in title over the suit property and after considering the different documents especially Paper No.47-Ga i.e, deed of possession executed in favour of the defendants, the property appeared to be a part of 'Rang Mahal' which was purchased by the defendants in auction proceedings.

The findings recorded by the courts below are findings of fact based on relevant evidence on record and I do not find any perversity or any other illegality in the same so as to give rise to any substantial question of law. No substantial question of law arises in the present case.

The appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 11.1.2023

IB

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 575 of 2010

Appellant :- Ram Jatan

Respondent :- Ram Baboo And Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Shyam Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- Devendra Kumar

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

(Orders on Delay Condonation Application and Substitution Application & Abatement Application)

The application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C filed by the counsel for the appellant in the Court for substituting the legal representative of the sole appellant is taken on record.

Office to grant regular number to the application.

The delay in filing the substitution application has been satisfactorily explained in the affidavit filed in support of substitution application.

Delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.

Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed.

Substitution application is also allowed.

Consequently, the abatement of the writ petition is also set-aside.

Office is directed to carry out appropriate substitution in relation to sole appellant petitioner as stated in the prayer clause of the substitution application.

Order Date :- 11.1.2023

IB