SA/116/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 4618 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

SA/116/2025 on 25 September, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

                                                                        2025:UHC:8672
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                     COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               SA No. 116 of 2025

                               Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Mr. Hem Pujari, learned counsel for the caveator.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs preferred a suit bearing O.S. No. 20 of 2011 titled as Alikan Bano and others vs. Arif Hussain for possession and eviction in respect of the property in question as described the of the plaint. The written statement was filed by the defendant and thereafter the Trial Court framed as many as five issues, which are as follows:

i. Whether the plaintiffs are the owner and is in possession and occupation of the property in question as mentioned in Schedule 1?

ii. Whether the defendants are the licencee of the plaintiff over the property in question? iii. Whether the plaintiff under valued the valuation of suit.

iv. Whether the plaintiff paid sufficient court fee?

v. Relief?

4. All the issues as framed above have been dealt with by the Trial Court and decided in favour of the plaintiff by decreeing the suit bearing O.S. No. 20 of 2011 by judgment and decree dated 15.05.2025. Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2025 and the appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court.

5. Being aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the plaintiff had failed to discharge the alleged oral partition as envisaged by Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further argued that the First Appellate Court also erred 2025:UHC:8672 in law by formulating the point of determination and has thus contravened the provision of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.

7. I have gone through with the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and admittedly there is a concurrent finding of fact and while adjudicating the suit as many as five issues were framed by the Trial Court and all the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and while dismissing the appeal the First Appellate Court also gone through all the issues as framed by the Trial Court and though the specific point of determination was not formulated by the First Appellate Court in its judgment but on perusal of the judgment it reveals that all the aspects has been dealt with by the First Appellate Court in its judgment.

8. Undisputedly, there is a concurrent finding of facts, therefore, I do not find any substantial question of law to entertain the instant second appeal.

9. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is dismissed in limine.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 25.09.2025 PR 2025:UHC:8672