Mangal Singh And Another vs State Of Up And 5 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11287 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mangal Singh And Another vs State Of Up And 5 Others on 8 October, 2025

Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:178095
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
SECOND APPEAL No. - 709 of 2025   
 
   Mangal Singh And Another    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of Up And 5 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Radhey Krishna Pandey, Surendra Narayan Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:  
 
  
 
     
 
 Court No. - 36
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.     

1. Plaintiffs-appellants, before this Court, had instituted a Civil Suit No.989 of 2012 against the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as two private respondents, namely, Ashok Kumar and Dharm Singh who were arrayed as defendants no.5 and 6. The suit was filed for seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for not interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs-appellants. The suit was partly decreed in favour of the appellants on the ground that though they failed to prove their ownership over the land, but on the basis of long possession over the property, the suit was partly decreed.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, State filed Civil Appeal No.78 of 2020 before the Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Moradabad which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 09.05.2025 on the ground that as the plaintiffs-appellants had failed to prove their ownership, no question of decreeing the suit partly arises over the land of Gaon Sabha recorded as banjar.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the real dispute is between the plaintiffs and defendants no.5 and 6, who are interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs, which led to filing the suit for injunction in which the State was also arrayed, as the land belongs to Gaon Sabha.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the material on record, I find that the specific relief has been sought not only against defendants no.5 and 6 of the suit, but also against the defendants no.1 to 4 restraining them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs.

5. It is an admitted case that the land is recorded as banjar in the revenue records and belongs to Gaon Sabha. The appellants cannot claim the land on the basis of long possession. The trial Court fell into error and partly decreed the suit while holding that the plaintiffs did not have any ownership right over the said property. The appellate Court had rightly reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit and allowed the appeal of the State.

6. No substantial questions of law is made out.

7. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

October 8, 2025

SK Goswami