Uttarakhand High Court
SA/7/2018 on 21 August, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
SA No. 07 of 2018
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, proxy counsel for Mr.
Tapan Singh, counsel for the appellant/defendant.
Mr. Nikhil Singhal, counsel for
respondent/plaintiff appeared through V.C.
2. Present second appeal has been preferred
against the impugned judgment and order dated
31.03.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Haridwar in Original Suit No. 404 of 2010 whereby
the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent had been
partly decreed as well as the impugned judgment and
order dated 30.11.2017 passed by 1st Additional
District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Appeal No. 32 of
2015 whereby the appeal filed by the
defendant/appellant against the said judgment had
been dismissed.
3. Counsel for the appellant/defendant would
submit that the respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit
against the appellant/defendant for permanent
injunction with averments that she is residing in the
suit property being legally wedded wife of the
appellant/defendant with the daughter of the
appellant, namely, Samreen; that, the
appellant/defendant is not providing any
maintenance to the respondent/plaintiff for long and
he is also trying to dispossess her from the suit
property; that, the said suit was decreed against the
appellant/defendant directing him not to dispossess
the respondent/plaintiff from the suit property
without due process of law.
4. Counsel for the appellant would submit that the
trial court without framing the issue to the effect that
whether the defendant/appellant is trying to evict the
plaintiff/respondent from the property in question,
wrongly decreed the suit against the
appellant/defendant; that, the impugned judgment of
the 1st Appellate Court is also unsustainable in eyes
of law whereby the appeal filed by the
appellant/defendant was also dismissed and the
judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgments of the trial court and the 1st
Appellate Court and memo of appeal.
6. It is evident from the record that except the
judgment of the trial court and the First Appellate
Court neither the decree nor any documents in
support of his case has been filed by the
appellant/defendant along with the present appeal.
7. Perusal of the judgment of trial court would
reveal that the respondent/plaintiff was claiming to
reside in the suit property being the legally wedded
wife of the appellant and this fact has not been
denied as stated in the judgment of the trial court.
The trial court framed three issues as follows:-
i. Whether the respondent/plaintiff residing in
the property in question being a legally
wedded wife of the appellant/defendant?
ii. Whether the respondent/plaintiff being the
legally wedded wife of the
defendant/appellant has a right to reside in
the property in question?
iii. If yes, then, which relief the
respondent/plaintiff is entitled to get?
8. Perusal of the judgment of the trial court as
well as 1st Appellate Court would reveal that both the
courts below while passing the impugned judgment
and orders have discussed all the three issues in
detail.
9. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it is
clear that in written statement and in his evidence
the appellant/defendant has admitted that
respondent/plaintiff is residing in suit property and
electricity connection is also in the name of daughter
of respondent/wife. It is also admitted in evidence by
appellant/defendant husband that
respondent/plaintiff wife had also contributed in
construction of the suit property. In his written
statement, appellant/defendant husband has stated
that he has asked the respondent/plaintiff wife to
shift her residence to the other house i.e. ancestral
property i.e. away from suit property.
10. Counsel for the appellant/defendant has not
been able to show any illegality or perversity in the
impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate
Court, which may give rise to any substantial
question of law warranting adjudication by this
Court in the present second appeal. Since no
substantial question of law is shown to have arisen,
the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission
stage.
11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal
deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby
dismissed in limine.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
21.08.2023
Akash
