8 March vs Jaggo Devi And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2394 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

8 March vs Jaggo Devi And Others on 18 March, 2025

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

                                                  2025:UHC:1877



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
              Second Appeal No. 13 of 2023
                       18 March, 2025



Manmohan Singh                         --Appellant/Defendant

                            Versus



Jaggo Devi and Others                 --Respondents/Plaintiffs

Presence:-
Mr. Yogesh Pandey and Mrs. Sangeeta Adhikari Patni, learned
counsel for the appellant/defendant.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)

This second appeal is preferred against the

impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 17.02.2020

in OS No.119 of 2013, "Jaggo Devi & Others" passed by

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kotdwar, District Pauri

Garhwal whereby counter claim of the

appellant/defendant for restraining plaintiff /respondent

was disallowed; that, the First Appeal No.16 of 2021 of

the appellant/defendant was also dismissed on

04.01.2023 by learned Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal.

2. Aggrieved by these two judgments of the Trial

Court and the First Appellate Court, the Second Appeal

is filed.

2025:UHC:1877

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant

would submit that the suit property was purchased by

the appellant/defendant in 1967 which was later on

mutated in his name, in view of the notification of the

Government which had permitted the mutation in the

name of the person who had purchased some

agricultural land on unregistered document and was in

possession; that, later on, this mutation was set aside on

the application of the respondents/plaintiffs, against

which, the appeal is pending before the Revenue Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the counter

claim of the appellant/defendant was dismissed because

he had placed the evidence before the Trial Court that in

the year 1967, the appellant/defendant had not even

born and without amending the pleadings he simply filed

an affidavit before the Trial Court stating therein that

Manmohan S/o Tajwar Singh was son of his father from

first wife and after his death he was born from second

wife of his father and the same name i.e. Manmohan

Singh was given to him. However, the

respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the Trial Court

and the First Appellate Court did notice concoction and

dismissed the counter claim and there is no ground in

the Second Appeal.

2025:UHC:1877

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant

would fairly admit that in the counter claim it is

specifically stated that the appellant/defendant was not

born in 1967 and without amending the pleadings he

admitted this fact in his affidavit.

6. In view of the above, there is no merit in this

Second Appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed

in limine.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 18.03.2025 SS