Allahabad High Court
Ramdhari And 6 Others vs Yatindra Nath And 8 Others on 13 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178140
Court No. - 36
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 861 of 2024
Appellant :- Ramdhari And 6 Others
Respondent :- Yatindra Nath And 8 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Dev Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Disha Srivastava,Hari Krishna Singh
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard Shri Manish Dev Singh, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants and Shri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This is defendants' appeal challenging the first Appellate Court's judgment and decree dated 12.04.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2020 (Yatindra Nath and others vs. Ram Prakash and others) whereby the learned first Appellate Court has set aside the trial court's judgment and decreed Original Suit No. 434 of 1996 (Kedarnath and others vs. Ram Prakash and others) granting a decree for injunction against the present appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land in dispute was recorded as 'Banjar' pursuant to the order dated 15.02.1976 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, which order attained finality and since the plaintiff-respondents were not recorded in the revenue records on the date of institution of suit, their claim for injunction was rightly discarded by the trial court but the same has been wrongly allowed in their favour by the first Appellate Court. Further submission is that the land being still recorded as 'Banjar' and the Gaon Sabha not being a party to the proceedings, the suit was not maintainable.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the names of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents were continuing in the revenue records, however, Assistant Consolidation Officer by an order dated 15.02.1976 expunged the entries, but such expunction would not affect the claim for injunction in view of Section 27 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. He further submits that treating the respondents as encroachers over Gaon Sabha land, certain proceedings under Section 122-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 were instituted, however, the same were dropped in their favour, which order became final and, therefore, the respondents are in actual and physical possession over the property. He further submits that the appellants did not contest the proceedings except filing written statement and certain unproved documents.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the trial court had dismissed the suit ex-parte. It recorded an observation that though written statement was filed by the defendants, they disappeared from the proceedings and the suit had proceeded ex-parte against them on 26.11.2006. The trial court discussed the oral and documentary evidence filed by the plaintiffs side and dismissed the suit by placing reliance upon the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Though, it appears that before the trial court as well as first Appellate Court, the defendants filed certain documents, particularly, the revenue records and consolidation records, they did not lead any oral evidence to prove the same.
6. This Court finds that actual and physical possession of the plaintiffs-respondents is well established on record, which fact stands substantiated from the proceedings initiated and dropped under Section 122-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. Therefore, the contest between the parties was in respect of claim for permanent prohibitory injunction protecting the possession of the plaintiffs against the defendants. For this inter se dispute, the burden to establish a better claim in comparison to the plaintiffs would lay upon the defendants irrespective of Gaon Sabha being a party to the proceedings, inasmuch as, the action of Gaon Sabha came to an end with dropping of proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act and there is nothing on record that, thereafter, Gaon Sabha had ever proceeded against the plaintiffs-respondents.
7. From the pleadings contained in the written statement, this Court finds that plea of Section 9 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 was taken by the defendants. However, the said plea was not proved by any cogent evidence and the entire thrust and emphasis of the defendants was upon the title of the plaintiffs.
8. The Court may observe that in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction inter se private parties, question of establishing a better case is of significance. Once defendants-appellants failed to lead any orally proved documentary evidence to establish their own title and possession over the land and the plaintiffs-respondents had led sufficient evidence at least to protect their possession against the appellants, merely because in 1976 the Assistant Consolidation Officer had expunged the entry treating the land as 'Banjar', it would not be sufficient to reject the case for injunction against the appellants.
9. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order of the first Appellate Court.
10. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
11. The instant second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission under Order XLI Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Order Date :- 13.11.2024
Sazia
