Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Sanjay Pathak on 26 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
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.11 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate for the appellants.
2. Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.1.
3. This second appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs
against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2024, passed
by learned District Judge, Champawat, in Civil Appeal
No.13 of 2022, Shivraj Singh and others Vs. Sanjay Pathak
and another, whereby the appeal preferred by the
appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed as well as
judgment and decree dated 12.12.2022, passed by learned
Civil Judge (J.D.), Tanakpur, Champawat, in Civil Suit No.2
of 2019, Shivraj Singh and others Vs. Sanjay Pathak and
another, whereby the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs was
dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, by the aforesaid judgments
and decrees, appellants/plaintiffs are before this Court in
second appeal.
4. The original suit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs
for permanent injunction against the
respondents/defendants. The suit was filed on the premise
that the appellants/plaintiffs who are owner in possession
of the property in-question are recorded in the khatoni.
5. The respondents/defendants were engaged as
caretakers of the aforesaid land by the appellants/plaintiffs,
but later on they refused to hand-over possession to the
appellants/plaintiffs. The suit was dismissed as well as the
appeal there against also met with the same fate.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents/defendants submitted that the land in-
question was purchased by father of the
respondent/defendant no.1 (Sanjay Pathak) by way of an
unregistered document in the year 1991.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this
Court is of the view that the appeal deserves to be admitted.
8. Admit the appeal on the following substantial
questions of law:-
I. Whether the learned appellate court as well as
trial court justified to reject the suit of permanent
injunction of recorded owner of land in dispute
against a encroacher who failed to justify his
illegal possession in the land in dispute?
II. Whether the First Appellate Court as well as the
Trial Court have justified by rejecting testimony of
the witnesses produced by the parties regarding
ownership and possession of the appellant in the
property in dispute?
III. Whether the learned appellate court justified to
over viewing the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 in
deciding the appeal?
IV. Whether the Courts below are justified by rejecting
the suit of the appellant by observing that
appellant failed to describe in which place of
khata khatauni no. 131 the land in dispute
situated whereas the appellant has already
described boundaries of the land in dispute in his
plaint?
V. Whether the Courts below are justified by rejecting
the suit of the appellant by protecting the illegal
possession of the respondent no.1 whose
ancestors had purchased the property in dispute
through unregistered document from a person who
was neither owner of the land in dispute nor he
has right to sale the same?
VI. Whether the Courts below are justified by rejecting
the suit of the appellants because the
documentary evidences produced by the
appellants are not supported by the any oral
evidence and under such circumstances
documentary evidences have no legal force?
VII. Whether the respondent/defendant no.1 would
get any right, title or interest by way of an
unregistered document which was executed in the
year 1991 after the amendment in the Registration
Act on 01.07.1977.
9. Issue notice to respondent no.2, returnable within six
weeks.
10. Steps to be taken within a week.
11. List this case on 30.10.2025.
12. In the meantime, parties shall maintain status quo
over the property in-question.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
26.08.2025
SK
