Dilip Kumar Singh vs Nirmala Devi And 5 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 392 ALL

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 392 ALL
Judgement Date : 4 January, 2023

Allahabad High Court

Dilip Kumar Singh vs Nirmala Devi And 5 Others on 4 January, 2023

Bench: Salil Kumar Rai




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12128 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Singh
 
Respondent :- Nirmala Devi And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Narayan Rai,Shariq Shamim
 

 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

A supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

The present petition has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 8.7.2013 passed by the Small Causes Court, District Allahabad decreeing SCC Case No. 50 of 2006 instituted by respondent no. 1 for arrears of rent and eviction of respondent no. 2 from the suit property as well as against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.02, District Allahabad rejecting Civil Revision No. 02 of 2013 filed against the decree of the trial court.

A reading of the judgments of the courts below indicates that respondent no. 2, the alleged tenant in the suit property, had denied the title of respondent no. 1 and had alleged that one Kishori Lal was the owner and landlord of the suit property by virtue of a Will dated 2.1.1992 executed by the husband of respondent no. 1, i.e., the erstwhile owner / landlord of the suit property. The Will dated 2.1.1992 was not produced before the courts below.

The petitioners who claim themselves to be the sons of Kishori Lal have filed the present petition. The petitioners were not party in the courts below.

I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the courts below. The Will was never produced before the courts below and, in any case, disputed question of the title between respondent no. 1 and the petitioners was not to be decided by the Small Causes Court. The courts below have recorded a finding that respondent no. 1 had proved that she along with her sons and daughters was the owner and landlord of the suit property.

The findings recorded by the courts below are findings of fact based on evidence on record. There is no perversity in the aforesaid findings so as to occasion interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 4.1.2023/Satyam