Uttarakhand High Court
2 January vs Naresh Kumar & Ors on 2 January, 2025
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
2025:UHC:10
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Appeal No. 153 of 2024
02 January, 2025
Rajkumar & Anr. ... Appellants
Versus
Naresh Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)
This second appeal is filed against the
judgment and order dated 13.11.2024 passed by 1st
Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Appeal
No.40 of 2023 "Rajkumar and another vs. Naresh
Kumar and others" alongwith decree dated 18.11.2024
as well as the judgment/order dated 11.08.2023
passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Haridwar in O.S. No.286 of 2015, whereby the suit of
the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed against the
appellants/defendants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent
no.1/plaintiff filed a suit O.S. No.286 of 2015 seeking a
decree of partition in respect of a commercial property
i.e. a shop admeasuring 10' x 18'.6" situated at
Jwalapur, District Haridwar with the averments that
the respondent no.1/plaintiff and the
appellant/defendants nos.1 and 2 had purchased this
2025:UHC:10
commercial shop along with their fourth brother
Yugendra Pal (since deceased) on 15.12.2004 by way of
sale deed registered on 17.12.2004; that, on the basis
of this sale deed the respondent no.1/plaintiff and the
appellants/defendants became the joint owner of the
suit property and they started doing the business
jointly; that, subsequently the appellants/defendants
started making attempts to interfere in the joint
possession in the manner thereby creating problems in
doing business jointly.
3. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties and
on perusal of oral and documentary evidence, decreed
the suit of the respondent no.1/plaintiff by the
impugned judgment. Being aggrieved, the
appellants/defendants preferred appeal, which was
also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the
appellants/defendants would submit that the suit
property was purchased jointly by the respondent
no.1/plaintiff and the appellants/defendants by a
registered sale deed by contributing equal amount. He
would simply submit that the shop in question cannot
be partitioned without diminishing its value.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents would submit that this appeal is against
the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the
courts below and therefore this Court should not
interfere with the same.
2025:UHC:10
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on file.
7. On the pleadings of parties and the evidence
by both the parties, the Trial Court recorded a finding
that the respondent no.1/plaintiff and the
appellants/defendants have paid equal contribution
and each one of them are joint owner of the suit
property and have 1/4 share in the same. It was also
recorded that the respondent no.1/plaintiff and the
appellants/defendants are in joint possession over the
suit property; that, appellants/defendant nos.1 and 2
have no right to do business in the property from the
year 2015 to 2025 nor any such agreement was
executed between the parties which could show that
there was an agreement between the parties to carry
out business on the property in question for 10-10
years from January 2005. In appeal, the First Appellate
Court concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial
Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
8. In the considered view of this Court, the
Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts
below in favour of respondent no.1/plaintiff are fully
justified based on evidence on record and are,
therefore, not liable to be interfered with. Learned
counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has failed to show
that how the findings of facts recorded by the Courts
below are illegal, perverse and based on no evidence.
2025:UHC:10
9. In view of the above, this Court is of the firm
opinion that no question of law, much less substantial
question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant
second appeal.
10. Resultantly, the second appeal is hereby
dismissed in limine.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
02.01.2025
Rajni
RAJINI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876d
b48448ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f
GUSAI 1d9b1f17d01342,
postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A22
N
22B4DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA0
13F530616A158A0A878BD8,
cn=RAJINI GUSAIN
Date: 2025.01.04 13:09:20 +05'30'
