[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
'Ghananand Memorial School & Anr vs Unknown on 20 March, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
SA No.29 of 2026
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Chandramauli Shah, Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Mr.
Shubham Dhariyal and Mr. Suryakant Maithani, learned counsel
for the plaintiff/appellant and Mr. Harshit Sanwal, learned counsel
for the respondent nos.1 & 2/caveator.
2. By means of the present second appeal, the
plaintiff/appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated
18.12.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Haldwani,
District Nainital in Civil Appeal No.11 of 2023, titled as
'Ghananand Memorial School & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Others',
whereby the Appellate Court allowed the Civil Apeal of the
respondent nos.1 & 2/defendant nos.3 & 5 and dismissed the suit of
the plaintiff/appellant by setting-aside the trial court's judgment.
3. Learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff/appellant has
made the submissions that at the initial stage, a commission was
issued by the trial court and as per the commission report, the
disputed site was found to be in Khasra No.22/01.
Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the
defendants have been encroaching upon the land of the
plaintiff/appellant and vide judgment and order dated 25.05.2023,
the trial court decreed the suit for prohibitory and mandatory
injunction.
4. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the defendant nos. 3 &
5 preferred Civil Appeal before the Appellate Court, which came to
be registered as Civil Appeal No.11 of 2023, 'Ghananand
Memorial School & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & others' and the same
has been decreed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and
order dated 18.12.2025.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 &
2/caveator has contended that the plaintiff/appellant has failed to
prove title or ownership. The basis of the suit was one Will of
Mukund Ram, but they utterly failed to prove the same.
Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2/caveator
further submitted that when there is a confusion regarding the
identity of the land then boundaries will prevail. The allegation as
levelled by the plaintiff/appellant that the sale deed is forged, has
not been proved by the plaintiff/appellant.
6. The Court has gone through the record and has also perused
the impugned judgments.
7. A perusal of the First Appellate Court's judgment reveals
that Three Points for determination were framed by the First
Appellate Court for adjudication of the Civil Appeal.
The First Point for determination was whether Late
Mukund Ram during his lifetime had sold the land one
Bigha 10 Biswa, 0.095 hectare vide registered sale deed
dated 04.01.1983 to the appellant no.1?
The Second Point for determination was to the effect
whether the land sold by Late Mukund Ram to the
appellant no.1 vide registered sale deed dated
04.01.1983, is disputed property in the case?
The Third Point for determination was whether the
plaintiff is the owner in possession of the disputed
property?
8. The point for determination no.1 was decided in favour of
the appellant no.1. The point for determination no.2 was also
decided in favour of the appellant and against the plaintiff. The
point for determination no.3 regarding the ownership and
possession was also decided against the plaintiff.
9. On a conspectus of the entire facts and circumstances of the
case and after hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties, it is apparent that there is a dispute regarding the
identity and the boundaries of the property in question and the
same needs to be dealt with by this Court for final adjudication of
this second appeal, therefore, the instant second appeal is admitted
on the following substantial question of law as framed in the memo
of appeal.
(i) Whether the learned first appellate court erred in law in
holding that boundary description prevails over a specific
and admitted revenue survey number, contrary to settled
legal principles governing identification of land through
revenue survey records?
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the Interim
Relief Application (IA No.01 of 2026).
11. Since the second appeal has been admitted, there will be an
interim order to the effect that no third party interest will be
created, as far as the property in question is concerned and status
quo shall be maintained by both the parties over the property in
question as on today till further orders.
12. T.C.R. be summoned.
13. List this matter on 19.06.2026.
14. Interim Relief Application (IA No.01 of 2026) stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
20.03.2026
Akash
