# Ram Baran v. Sheetla Prasad Yadav & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 955
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-21
- **Case number:** Second Appeal No. 361 of 2018
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-baran-v-sheetla-prasad-yadav-anr-53278
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section
229-B - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Suit for
Cancellation of Sale Deed - Fraud, Cheating,
and Impersonation - Prima Facie Title of
Recorded Tenure Holder - Concurrent Findings
of Fact - Scope of Interference in Second
Appeal.

Held:
The appellant challenged the judgment and
decree dated 10.12.2013 by the Additional Civil
Judge, Sultanpur, and the appellate court's
confirmation on 29.09.2018, which cancelled a
sale deed dated 20.04.1987 on grounds of
fraud, cheating, and impersonation. The appeal
was admitted on the substantial question of
whether the civil court had jurisdiction to
entertain the suit for cancellation of the sale
deed, given that the plaintiff's predecessor-ininterest was not recorded as the tenure holder,
or if the suit was maintainable only in the
revenue court under Section 229-B of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The Court held that a civil
court has jurisdiction to try a suit for
cancellation of a sale deed when the plaintiff's
predecessor-in-interest was the recorded tenure
holder with prima facie title, and the suit alleges
fraud, as per *Shri Ram v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge,
(2001) 3 SCC 24*. The plaintiff's husband, Ram
Dev, was the recorded tenure holder, and after
his death, the plaintiff, as his legal heir, had
prima facie title. The sale deed was not
supported by evidence of execution or payment
of consideration, and the defendant/respondent
no.2, a beneficiary, supported the plaintiff's
claim of fraud. Concurrent findings of fact by
both courts below, based on evidence, were not
perverse and thus not liable to interference
under Section 100 CPC. The substantial question
of law did not arise, as the civil court was
competent to entertain the suit. The appeal was
dismissed for lack of merit.

Second Appeal dismissed.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

4 All. Ram Baran Vs. Sheetla Prasad Yadav & Anr.
955
averment can in no way be said to be
unambiguous or clear admission of parties
being together as on that date.

10. We are satisfied, on hearing the
parties
and making our
enquiry as
aforesaid, parties are entitled to divorce by
mutual consent. The averments in the
petition are true. Hence, we declare the
marriage solemnized on 6th December,
2004 to be dissolved by mutual consent.
The decree be drawn up expeditiously.

11. The appeal is disposed of.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 955
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Second Appeal No. 361 of 2018

Ram Baran ... Appellant
Versus
Sheetla Prasad Yadav & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mohammad Ehtesham Khan

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.B. Singh, Anshuman Singh Rathore, Bhoomika
Bajpai, Raghaw Ram Upadhyay

Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section
229-B - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Suit for
Cancellation of Sale Deed - Fraud, Cheating,
and Impersonation - Prima Facie Title of
Recorded Tenure Holder - Concurrent Findings
of Fact - Scope of Interference in Second
Appeal.

Held:
The appellant challenged the judgment and
decree dated 10.12.2013 by the Additional Civil
Judge, Sultanpur, and the appellate court's
confirmation on 29.09.2018, which cancelled a
sale deed dated 20.04.1987 on grounds of
fraud, cheating, and impersonation. The appeal
was admitted on the substantial question of
whether the civil court had jurisdiction to
entertain the suit for cancellation of the sale
deed, given that the plaintiff's predecessor-ininterest was not recorded as the tenure holder,
or if the suit was maintainable only in the
revenue court under Section 229-B of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The Court held that a civil
court has jurisdiction to try a suit for
cancellation of a sale deed when the plaintiff's
predecessor-in-interest was the recorded tenure
holder with prima facie title, and the suit alleges
fraud, as per *Shri Ram v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge,
(2001) 3 SCC 24*. The plaintiff's husband, Ram
Dev, was the recorded tenure holder, and after
his death, the plaintiff, as his legal heir, had
prima facie title. The sale deed was not
supported by evidence of execution or payment
of consideration, and the defendant/respondent
no.2, a beneficiary, supported the plaintiff's
claim of fraud. Concurrent findings of fact by
both courts below, based on evidence, were not
perverse and thus not liable to interference
under Section 100 CPC. The substantial question
of law did not arise, as the civil court was
competent to entertain the suit. The appeal was
dismissed for lack of merit.

Second Appeal dismissed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Shri Ram Vs Ist A.D.J., (2001) 3 SCC 24* -
Civil court's jurisdiction to entertain suit for
cancellation of sale deed by recorded tenure
holder alleging fraud.

2. Kamla Prasad Vs Kishna Kant Pathak, (2007)
4 SCC 213* - Suit for declaration of rights in
revenue court required if plaintiff's name not
recorded in revenue records.

3. Ram Padarath Vs II A.D.J., Sultanpur, 1989
AWC (FB) (LB) 290* - Recorded tenure holder
can seek cancellation of void document in civil
court without needing declaration in revenue
court.
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Jai Ram Singh Vs 1st A.D.J., Bijnore, 2007
(25) LCD 283* - Civil court's jurisdiction for
cancellation of sale deed on grounds of fraud if
plaintiff or predecessor-in-interest recorded in
revenue records.

5. Suryakunwari Vs Nanhu, 2019 (37) LCD
2346* - Concurrent findings of fact not to be
interfered
with
in
second
appeal
unless
perverse.

6. Jangi Singh Vs Brij Mohan Singh, 2012 (30)
LCD 2616 - No interference in second appeal if
findings based on evidence.

7. Kapil Kumar Vs Raj Kumar, (2022) 10
SCC 281* - No interference with concurrent
findings unless perverse.

8. Shivah Balram Haibatti Vs Avinash
Maruthi Pawar, (2018) 11 SCC 652* -
Concurrent
findings
binding
in
second
appeal absent perversity.

9. Narendra Vs Ajabrao, (2018) 11 SCC
564* - Interference in second appeal
permissible only for perverse findings or
legal errors.

10. Dalip Singh Vs Bhupinder Kaur, (2018)
3 SCC 677* - No interference in second
appeal absent perversity.

11. Gautam Sarup Vs Leela Jetly, (2008) 7
SCC 85* - Alternative pleas permissible but
not mutually destructive.

12. State Bank of India Vs S.N. Goyal,
(2008) 8 SCC 92* - Substantial question of
law must impact the decision in the case.

Observation:

The
Court
noted
that
the
defendant/respondent no.2, a beneficiary of
the sale deed, supported the plaintiff's
claim of fraud, denying execution and
payment of consideration. The appellant's
claim of execution and possession was not
substantiated by evidence, and the absence
of any provision for the plaintiff's livelihood
by
her
husband,
Ram
Dev,
further
supported the inference of fraud. The
concurrent findings of the courts below,
based on oral and documentary evidence,
were not perverse, and the civil court was
competent to entertain the suit given the
plaintiff's prima facie title as the legal heir
of the recorded tenure holder.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,
J.)

1.

Heard,
Shri
Mohammad
Ehtesham Khan, learned counsel for the
appellant alongwith Shri Shashi Kant
Mishra, Sri Raghaw Ram Upadhyay,
learned counsel for the respondent no.1
and Shri Anshuman Singh Rathore,
learned counsel for respondent no.2.

2. The instant Second Appeal has
been filed under Section 100 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (here-inafter referred as CPC) against the
judgment and decree dated 10.12.2013
passed in Regular Suit No.1129 of
1992; Pran Dei (deceased) substituted
by legal heir Smt. Karma Dei versus
Ram Baran and another by Additional
Civil
Judge
(Jr.Div.),
Court
No.31,
Sultanpur and judgment and decree dated
29.09.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.36 of
2014; Ram Baran Versus Sheetala Prasad and
others by the VIth Additional District Judge,
Sultanpur.

3. The appeal has been admitted on the
following substantial question of law framed
in the memo of appeal:-

"Whether the civil court was
competent to entertain a suit for cancellation
of sale deed dated 22.04.1987 on behalf of
Mst. Pran Dei who was not recorded over the
land in question or the said suit was
maintainable before the revenue courts in
terms of the provisions contained under
Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act?"
4 All. Ram Baran Vs. Sheetla Prasad Yadav & Anr.
957

4. A suit for cancellation of sale deed
dated
20.04.1987
was
filed
by
the
predecessor-in-interest
of
plaintiff/respondent no.1 i.e. Pran Dei with
the allegation that the land in dispute
bearing Gata No.839 having an area of 2
bigha, 4 biswa and 17 dhur, situated in
village
Salahpur,
Pargana-Meeranpur,
Tehsil and District-Sultanpur was recorded
in the name of Ram Dev son of Nohar. He
remained in possession of the said land
during his life time. He died in the year
1987. He had only one daughter, namely,
Smt. Karma Dei, who was married to Ram
Akbal,
resident
of
Village-Mainapur,
Pargana-Aldemau, Tehsil-Kadipur, DistrictSultanpur. The suit was filed by Smt. Pran
Dei, wife of Ram Dev, claiming that she is
widow of deceased Ram Dev and is only
legal heir and after his death she is owner
and in possession of all immovable and
movable properties of the deceased Ram
Dev. The deceased Ram Dev had not
executed any sale deed or Will deed in
favour of anybody in his life time. The
defendant/respondent
no.2
herein
i.e.
Radhey Shyam had got the land in dispute
recorded in his name on the basis of a Will.
On coming to know about the same she
filed an application on 17.09.1992 for
removal of his name from the revenue
records, which is pending. On 20.09.1992
when she inquired from the defendants
about the forged order made in their favour
then it came to light that a sale deed has
also been executed in favour of the
defendants i.e. the defendant/appellant and
defendant no.2/respondent no.2. She was
astonished to hear it and she moved an
application for certified copy of the
documents, which was received by her on
09.10.1992. 10.10.1992 and 11.10.1992
were holidays, therefore, she filed the suit
for cancellation of sale deed on 12.10.1992.
The suit was filed alleging therein that the
sale deed in question dated 20.04.1987 in
favour of defendants is illegal. There was
no talks between the husband of the
plaintiff i.e. predecessor-in-interest of the
plaintiff/respondent
no.1
and
the
defendants i.e. the defendant no.1/appellant
and defendant/respondent no.2 for sale of
the land in dispute. He had also not
executed the sale deed of the land in
dispute in favour of the defendants. It was
further alleged that the deceased Ram Dev
had no need to sell the land in dispute. He
had
also
not
received
any
sale
consideration. The sale deed in question is
an outcome of fraud and forgery. The
deceased Ram Dev was very old. He was
aged about 80 years at that time. He was
unable to differentiate between good and
bad. On coming to know about the sale
deed in question she asked to the
defendants to get the same cancelled, but
they were not ready and they had
completely
denied
on
11.10.1992,
therefore, she had to file the suit.

5. The suit was contested by the
defendant/appellant-Ram Baran, who was
defendant no.1 in the suit denying the
averments made in the plaint. It was further
alleged that the deceased Ram Dev son of
Nohar was the sole owner of the land in
dispute bearing Gata No.839. He was in
need of money, therefore, he want to
execute the sale deed of the land in dispute,
for which he had talked to the defendant
No.1/appellant. Thereafter, he in his good
health and with independent mind without
any coercion executed the sale deed of the
land in dispute after receiving the total sale
consideration before the witnesses. After
the sale deed the defendant no.1/appellant;
Ram Baran entered into possession on his
portion of the land in dispute. The
predecessor-in-interest
of
the
plaintiff/respondent
no.1
had
the
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
knowledge of it since the beginning, but no
action was taken during life time of the
deceased-Ram Dev. She was old therefore
some persons got the wrong and forged suit
filed by her by undue influence, whereas
she has no concern with the land in dispute.
The suit was filed in the year 1992,
therefore, it is beyond limitation. The
names of the defendant No.1/appellant and
defendant/respondent no.2 were recorded in
the revenue records. Thus the suit is not
maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the
parties
seven
issues
were
framed.
Thereafter oral as well as documentary
evidence was adduced by the parties. The
plaintiff/respondent no.1 filed the copy of
the sale deed in favour of Ram Baran and
Radhey Shyam, copy of the Khatauni. The
defendant No.1/appellant placed on record
the original sale deed. Predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiff/respondent no.1Pran Dei got herself examined as P.W.-1
and
Radhey
Shyam
i.e.
the
defendant/respondent no.2 as P.W.2 in oral
evidence. The defendant no.1/appellant got
himself examined as D.W.-1, Sadhu Yadav
as D.W.-2 and Rati Pal as D.W.3. The
learned Trial court after considering the
pleadings of the parties, evidence and
material on record decreed the suit and
cancelled the sale deed dated 20.04.1987
by means of the judgment and decree
dated 10.12.2013.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
decree passed by the trial court, the
defendant no.1-appellant; Ram Baran
filed a civil appeal under Section 96 and
Order 41 Rule (1) CPC challenging the
judgment and decree dated 10.12.2013
passed by the trial court. The appellate
court considered the appeal after framing
four
points
for
determination
and
considering the pleadings, evidence and
material on record dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the judgment and decree
passed by the trial court. Hence this
Second Appeal has been filed by the
defendant no.1/appellant, which has been
admitted on the aforesaid substantial
question of law.

8. The suit for cancellation of sale
deed dated 20.04.1987 was filed by the
predecessor-in-interest
of
the
plaintiff/respondent no.1-Mst.Pran Dei,
who was wife of Ram Dev. Ram Dev was
the original tenure holder of the land in
dispute bearing Gata No.839 having an
area of 2 bigha, 4 biswa and 17 dhur,
situated in village Salahpur, DistrictSultanpur. Ram Dev and Pran Dei had no
son. They had only one daughter, namely,
Smt. Karma, who was married to Ram
Akbal. Ram Dev died in the year 1987.
Thus after death of Ram Dev, his widow
Pran Dei was the only legal heir of his
immovable
and
movable
properties
except for the sale deed challenged in the
suit. These facts are not disputed.

9. Section 9 of CPC provides that
the courts shall have jurisdiction to try all
suits of a civil nature excepting suits of
which their cognizance is either expressly
or impliedly barred, which is extracted
here-in-below:-

"9. Courts to try all civil suits
unless barred .- The Courts shall
(subject
to
the
provisions
herein
contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits
of a civil nature excepting suits of which
their cognizance is either expressly or
impliedly barred.

Explanation [I ].-A suit in which
the right to property or to an office is
contested is a suit of a civil nature,
4 All. Ram Baran Vs. Sheetla Prasad Yadav & Anr.
959
notwithstanding that such right may depend
entirely on the decision of questions as to
religious rites or ceremonies.

[
Explanation
II
.-For
the
purposes of this section, it is immaterial
whether or not any fees are attached to the
office referred to in Explanation I or
whether or not such office is attached to a
particular place.]"

10. In view of above, every person
has an inherent right to file a suit of civil
nature unless there is an express or implied
bar of taking cognizance of a suit of the
nature which has been filed. Thus the
courts under CPC have jurisdiction to try
all types of suits unless the same is barred
specifically or by necessary implication in
any law.

11.

Section
229-B
provides
declaratory suit by person claiming to be an
asami of a holding or part thereof or
bhumidhar. Thus the suit before the
revenue court can be filed, if a person is
claiming a right of bhumidhar, whereas he
may not have a claim otherwise. Section
229-B is extracted here-in-below:-

"[229-B. Declaratory suit by
person claiming to be an asami of a
holding or part thereof.- [(1) Any person
claiming to be an asami of a holding or any
part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly
with any other person, may sue the
landholder for a declaration of his rights as
asami in such holding or part, as the case
may be].

(2) In any suit under sub-section
(1) any other person claiming to hold as
asami under the land-holder shall be
impleaded as defendant.

(3) The provisions of sub-sections
(1) and (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply to
a suit by a person claiming to be a
[bhumidhar] [Substituted by U.P. Act No.
37 of 1958.] [* * *] [Omitted by U.P. Act
No. 8 of 1977 (w.e.f. 28.01.1977).] with the
amendment that for the word "landholder"
the words "the State Government and the
[Gaon Sabha] [Substituted by U.P Act No.
33 of 1961.] are substituted therein.]"

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Shri Ram and another Versus
Ist Addl. Distt.Judge and others; (2001) 3
SCC 24, has held that where a recorded
tenure-holder having a prima facie title and
being in possession files suit in the civil
court for cancellation of sale deed having
been obtained on the ground of fraud or
impersonation he cannot be directed to file
a suit for declaration in the Revenue Court,
the reason being that in such a case, prima
facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder
is not under cloud and he does not require
declaration of his title to the land.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme court, in
the case of Kamla Prasad and others
Versus Kishna Kant Pathak and others;
(2007) 4 SCC 213, has held that a suit in
which the name of the purchaser was
mutated on an admission of the execution
of sale deed by the plaintiff himself, who
appeared as a witness before the mutation
court, the plaintiff would have to go before
the Revenue Court for declaration of his
rights also.

14. This court, in the case of Jai Ram
Singh and another versus 1st Additional
Distt. Judge, Bijnore and others; 2007
(25) LCD 283, relying on a Full Bench
decision of this court in the case of Ram
Padarath Versus II ADJ, Sultanpur and
others; 1989 AWC(FB)(LB) 290 and Shri
Ram and another Versus 1st Addl.
District Judge and others; AIR 2001 SC
1250, has held that a person who questions
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sale deed executed or purported to be
executed by him in respect of agricultural
land can file the suit for its cancellation
before civil court if it is alleged by him that
the sale deed is void or viodable on the
ground of fraud, coercion, undue influence,
misrepresentation
or
impersonation.
Similarly sale deed executed or purported
to be executed by predecessor-in-interest of
a plaintiff can also be challenged by him
before civil court on the same grounds.
However, in such situation it is necessary
that immediately before the execution of
the sale deed, the plaintiff or his
predecessor-in-interest must undisputedly
be recorded in the revenue records.
Conversely, if a person challenged the sale
deed executed by any person claiming right
over the land though his name was not
recorded then he will have to go before a
revenue court for declaration of his rights
because in such case the challenge in real
sense is to the position and affairs in
existence immediately before execution
of sale deed. The paragraphs 8 and 9 are
extracted here-in-below:-

"8. In view of the above
authorities, including the Full Bench
authority a person who questions sale
deed executed or purported to be
executed by him in respect of agricultural
land can file the suit for its cancellation
before civil court if it is alleged by him
that the sale deed is void or viodable on
the ground of fraud, coercion, undue
influence,
misrepresentation
or
impersonation.
Similarly
sale
deed
executed or purported to be executed by
predecessor-in-interest of a plaintiff can
also be challenged by him before civil
court on the same grounds. However, in
such situation it is necessary that
immediately before the execution of the
sale deed, the plaintiff or his predecessorin-interest must undisputedly be recorded
in the revenue records.

9. Conversely, if sale deed
executed by a person is challenged by
another person on the ground that even
though immediately before the sale deed
only the name of vendor / vendors was
undisputedly recorded in the revenue
records, still plaintiff had a right in the said
land, then such suit is not maintainable
before civil court, as it primarily involves
question of declaration of right in the
agricultural land. In such situation it is not
actually the sale deed and state of affairs
coming in existence by execution of the
sale deed which is being challenged. The
challenge in such situation in real sense is
to the position and affairs in existence
immediately before the execution of the
sale deed. If a person asserts that apart from
the recorded tenure-holder he also has got a
right in the agricultural land then his only
remedy lies in filing a suit for declaration
before the revenue Court."

15. A Full Bench of this court, in the
case of Ram Padarath and others Versus
IInd Additional District Judge, Sultanpur
and others; 1989 AWC (FB) (LB) 290,
has held that a recorded tenure holder
having prima facie title in his favour can
hardly be directed to approach the revenue
court in respect of seeking relief for
cancellation of a void document, which
made him to approach the court of law and
in such case he can also claim ancillary
relief even though the same can be granted
by the Revenue Court. Relevant paragraph
41 is extracted here-in-below:-

41. We are of the view that the
case of Indra Deo v. Smt. Ram Piari, 1982
(8) ALR 517 has been correctly decided
and
the
said
decision
requires
no
consideration, while the Division Bench
4 All. Ram Baran Vs. Sheetla Prasad Yadav & Anr.
961
case, Dr. Ayodhya Prasad v. Gangotri, 1981
AWC 469 is regarding the jurisdiction of
consolidation authorities, but so far as it
bolds that suit in respect of void document
will lie in the revenue court it does not lay
down a good law. Suit or action for
cancellation
of
void
document
will
generally lie in the civil court and a party
cannot be deprived of his right getting this
relief permissible under law except when a
declaration of right or status of a tenureholder is necessarily needed in which event
relief for cancellation will be surplusage
and redundant. A recorded tenure-holder
having prima facie title in his favour can
hardly be directed to approach the revenue
court in respect of seeking relief for
cancellation of a void document which
made him to approach the court of law and
in such case he can also claim ancillary
relief even though the same can be granted
by the revenue court."

16. This court, in the case of Ram
Tahal Singh Versus Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Sultanpur and others;
Writ-B No.4512 of 1985 by means of
judgment and order dated 22.12.2023
passed by me after considering the
aforesaid Full Bench judgment, has held
that the recorded tenure holder having
prima facie title in his favour can hardly be
directed to approach the revenue court in
respect of seeking relief for cancellation of
a void document.

17. In view of above, it is clear that in
such types of cases where the rights or title
are not mainly involved and the question
involved is only for cancellation of a sale
deed, it is the civil court only which has
jurisdiction to try the suit and cancel the
sale deed. However, a person filing a suit is
required to show that he/she has title in the
land in dispute and his/her name or the
name of the predecessor-in-interest of
him/her was recorded in the revenue
records showing title in their name, except
for the sale deed under challenge and
he/she would not have favoured/consented
for mutation during mutation proceedings.

18. Adverting to the facts of the
present case, it is not in dispute that Ram
Dev son of Nohar was the recorded tenure
holder of the land in dispute. The plaintiffPran Dei (now deceased) was the wife of
Ram Dev. They had no son and only a
daughter, therefore, after death of Ram Dev
his widow i.e. Pran Dei was the only legal
heir of movable and immovable properties
of Ram Dev. The suit was filed for
cancellation of sale deed on the ground that
the sale deed in question dated 20.04.1987
in favour of defendants i.e. the defendant
No.1/appellant and defendant/respondent
no.2 is illegal for the reasons that there was
no talk between the husband of the plaintiff
and the defendants for sale of the land in
dispute and there was no agreement for
execution of sale deed and no sale deed has
been executed by the husband of plaintiff in
favour of the defendants and there was no
need of sale of the land in dispute by the
said Ram Dev i.e. the husband of the
plaintiff and Ram dev had not got the sale
consideration and the sale deed is an
outcome
of
fraud,
cheating
and
impersonation and Ram Dev was very old
and in 1987 he was aged about 80 years
and he had no sense of good and bad since
prior to two years of his death. Thus the
suit was filed alleging that it is an outcome
of the fraud, cheating and impersonation by
the defendants and prima facie title of the
plaintiff can not be denied because her
husband was a recorded tenure holder and
after him the plaintiff was the only legal
heir, except for the sale deed alleged to
have been executed by her husband.
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. The suit was contested by by the
defendant
no.1/appellant
denying
the
allegations and stating that Ram Dev
executed the sale deed in favour of him and
his brother after receiving the sale
consideration from them and they are in
possession of the land in dispute. However
it
was
not
contested
by
the
defendant/respondent
no.2,
who
appeared in evidence as P.W.-2 on
behalf of plaintiff/respondent no.1 and
supported her/his case. Radhey Shyam;
defendant/respondent no.2 appeared as
P.W.2. The sale deed is also in favour of
Radhey Shyam. P.W.-2 stated in his
examination-in-chief that he had neither
got executed the sale deed from Ram
Dev nor paid any money. He also stated
that his brother had asked him for
getting the sale deed executed from
Ram
Dev
by
impersonation
by
somebody else in his place, but he had
declined. He also stated that the land in
dispute is of Ram Dev and his widow is
in possession of the same and he and
his brother have no concern with the
same. He also stated in his cross
examination that no sale deed was
executed by Ram Dev in favour of him
and his brother Ram Baran. He also
stated that Ram Dev was old and Ram
Baran had took him for treatment. He
was not with them. Their relations with
Ram Dev were cordial and both reside
in the same house. Ram Baran also
resides in the same house. There was no
talks during life time of Ram Dev for
execution of sale deed between them.
He also stated that the relations of Ram
Dev and Ram Baran were also cordial.
The land in dispute is in possession of
Pran Dei and the purchasers are not in
possession of the same. P.W.-1 Pran Dei
also stated in her evidence that land-indispute is in her possession.

20. The defendant No.1/appellant;
Ram Baran appeared as D.W.-1 in the
witness box. He stated that the sale
deed was executed by the deceased Ram
Dev in favour of him and his brother
after thinking and with his free will and
without any coercion. The sale deed
was
executed
in
consideration
of
Rs.35,000/-. He further stated that the
sale consideration was paid in 2-3
installments six months prior to the sale
deed. The last installment of Rs.5,000/-
was paid about 4-6 days back. The money
was given by him and his brother Radhey
Shyam
together,
whereas
he
while
appearing as P.W.2 has denied of paying
any money. He also stated that Gokul and
Ravindra Kumar Singh were the witness
of the sale deed and at the time of
execution of sale deed Radhey Shyam,
Pran Dei, Gokul and Ravindra Kumar
Singh were present and the sale deed was
read over to all of them. He further stated
that after execution of the sale deed, he
and his brother Radhey Shyam are in
possession of the land in dispute, whereas
Radhey Shyam has denied the possession
and stated that Pran Dei is in possession
after his husband, who remained in
possession during his life time. He also
stated that he has got the sale deed
executed of whole of the property of Ram
Dev and Ram Dev has not left anything
for livelihood of his wife. He also stated
that there was nobody from village
including Gokul present at the time of
payment of sale consideration. He also
admitted that no money was paid before
the
Registrar.
He
also
stated
that
Rs.20,000/- was paid towards expenses,
which was included in Rs.35,000/-.

21. D.W.-2 Sadhu Yadav has stated
that neither the sale deed was executed
before him nor the payment was made
4 All. Ram Baran Vs. Sheetla Prasad Yadav & Anr.
963
before him. In regard to possession, he
stated that Ram Dev used to cultivate the
land in dispute during his life time and after
his death Pran Dei is doing the same. D.W.-
3 Rati Pal stated that Ram Dev had
executed the sale deed of his whole
property and nothing was left for his wife.
The house had also come in favour of Ram
Baran and Radhey Shyam.

22. In view of above it is apparent
that the execution of sale deed by Ram Dev
and payment of sale consideration could
not
be
proved
by
the
defendant
No.1/appellant as the defence witnesses
and P.W.-2, who himself is a beneficiary of
the sale deed as per the sale deed, have not
supported the case of the defendant
No.1/appellant in regard to payment of sale
consideration, execution of sale deed and
possession of the land in dispute.

23. It is also very strange that nothing
would have been left by Ram Dev for the
livelihood of his wife. The defendant
no.1/appellant admitted that nothing was
left by him for the wife for her livelihood,
but no reason could be shown as to why
nothing was left by him. It is not believable
that a husband would not leave anything or
make any arrangement for the livelihood of
his wife in case of his death during life time
of his wife, unless there is any cogent
reason for it with proof thereof, which
could not be shown and proved, therefore,
execution of sale deed by Ram Dev itself
creates doubt and it can be safely inferred
that it would have been an outcome of
fraud, cheating and impersonation by the
defendant No.1/appellant, in regard to
which P.W.-2 Radhey Shyam, in whose
favour also the sale deed has been
executed, has specifically stated that the
defendant No.1/appellant had asked him
to get the sale deed executed from Ram
Dev by impersonation by some other
person. The courts' below have recorded
the findings considering the above on the
basis of pleadings, evidence and material
on record and nothing could be shown
contrary to it.

24. An argument was raised by
learned
counsel
for
the
defendant
No.1/appellant that since after execution
of the Will by Ram Dev, he had executed
the sale deed of the fertile land in favour
of
the
defendant
No.1/appellant,
therefore, his brother Radhey Shyam
colluded with the plaintiff/respondent
no.1 and gave evidence in his favour.
This contention does not seem to be
correct for the reason that P.W.-2 Radhy
Shyam i.e. defendant/respondent no.2
was also beneficiary of the sale deed,
therefore, it is totally misconceived and
not tenable.

25. It is settled law that the
concurrent findings of facts recorded by
the two courts below cannot be set aside
in the Second Appeal, unless they are
perverse. This Court, in the case of
Suryakunwari
versus
Nanhu
and
Others 2019(37)LCD 2346, considering
several judgements has held that the
concurrent findings of facts recorded by
the two courts are not liable to be set
aside unless and until the findings are
perverse. The relevant paragraphs 11 to
16 are extracted here-in-below:-

"11. In this case, there are
concurrent findings on facts by both the
courts below. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
catena of judgments has laid down the
law that the concurrent findings of fact
recorded by two courts below should not
be interfered by the High Court in Second
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appeal, unless and until the findings are
perverse.

12. In a recent case of Shivah
Balram Haibatti Vs. Avinash Maruthi
Pawar (2018)11 SCC 652 the Apex Court
has held as under:-

"......
These
findings
being
concurrent findings of fact were binding on
the High Court and, therefore, the second
appeal should have been dismissed in
limine as involving no substantial question
of law."

13. In another recent case of
Narendra and others Vs. Ajabrao S/o
Narayan Katare (dead) through legal
representatives, (2018) 11 SCC 564 the
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-

"...interference in second appeal
with finding of fact is permissible where
such finding is found to be wholly perverse
to the extent that no judicial person could
ever record such finding or where that
finding is found to be against any settled
principle of law or pleadings or evidence.
Such errors constitute a question of law
permitting interference in Second Appeal."

14. In one more recent case Dalip
Singh Vs. Bhupinder Kaur, (2018) 3 SCC
677 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if
there is no perversity in concurrent findings
of fact, interference by the High Court in
Second Appeal is not permissible.

15. In Gautam Sarup v. Leela
Jetly and Ors. [(2008) 7 SCC 85], the Apex
Court held that a party is entitled to take an
alternative plea. Such alternative pleas,
however, cannot be mutually destructive of
each other.

16. In State Bank of India and
others Vs. S.N. Goyal; (2008) 8 SCC 92 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

"Second appeals would lie in
cases which involve substantial questions
of law. The word 'substantial' prefixed to
'question of law' does not refer to the stakes
involved in the case, nor intended to refer
only to questions of law of general
importance, but refers to impact or effect of
the question of law on the decision in the
lis
between
the
parties.
'Substantial
questions
of
law'
means
not
only
substantial questions of law of general
importance, but also substantial question of
law arising in a case as between the parties.
In the context of section 100 CPC, any
question of law which affects the final
decision in a case is a substantial question
of law as between the parties. A question of
law
which
arises
incidentally
or
collaterally, having no bearing in the final
outcome, will not be a substantial question
of law. Where there is a clear and settled
enunciation on a question of law, by this
Court or by the High Court concerned, it
cannot be said that the case involves a
substantial question of law."

26. Similar view has been taken by
this Court, in the case of Bhagauti Singh
@ Chedi Singh S/O Madhuban Singh
versus Mata Prasad Singh S/O Bhaggu
Singh; 2022(40)LCD 2461, in which it has
been held that it is crystal clear that the
High Court in exercise of power under
Section 100 CPC should not interfere in the
findings of fact recorded by the first
appellate court, which is a final court of
fact or concurrent findings of fact unless
the same are based on no evidence or
perverse.

27. This Court, in the case of Jangi
Singh versus Brij Mohan Singh and
others; 2012(30)LCD 2616, has held that
both the courts below have recorded their
finding on the basis of the evidence on
record, which does not give any rise to the
substantial question of law as raised by the
defendant-appellant.
4 All. Smt. Sarba Maurya & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
965

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Kapil Kumar versus Raj
Kumar; (2022) 10 SCC 281, has held that
unless the concurrent findings recorded by
the courts below were found to be perverse,
the same were not required to be interfered
with by the High Court in exercise of
powers under Section 100 CPC.

29. In view of above and considering
the overall facts and circumstances of the
case this court is of the view that the
impugned judgment and decrees have been
passed in accordance with law by reasoned
and speaking order, which does suffer from
any illegality, error or perversity. Thus the
substantial question of law formulated by
this court does not arise in this case
because the suit for cancellation of sale
deed can be filed by a person, who has a
prima facie title of the land in dispute and
the
predecessor-in-interest
of
the
plaintiff/respondent no.1 had the title
except for the sale deed in question,
which was challenged, which was an
out come of fraud, cheating and
impersonation as discussed above. The
Second Appeal has been filed on
misconceived and baseless grounds,
which lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

30.

The
Second
Appeal
is,
accordingly, dismissed. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 965
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 151 of 2013
Smt. Sarba Maurya & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Y.K. Pandey Rakesh Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Mukund Tewari, Satyajit Banerji, Surendra Pal
Singh

A.
Motor
Accident
Act,
1988
-
Compensation - Enhancement in loss of
consortium, loss of eSt., funeral expenses
claimed - Entitlement - Pranay Sethi's
case and Babita's case relied upon - Held,
the amount towards loss of eSt., loss of
consortium
and
funeral
expenses
as
awarded by the learned Tribunal stand
enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- &
Rs.15,000/- respectively. Each of the
claimants would be entitled to loss of
consortium of Rs.40,000/-. Rate of
interest on the amount as has been
awarded by the learned Tribunal is
also enhanced to 9% per annum. (Para
21, 23 and 24)

B.
Motor
Accident
Act,
1988
-
Compensation - Future prospects -
Determination - Savita's case relied
upon - Held, the notional income is
increased by 30% being the future
prospect. Said amount would be added
to
the
notional
income
of
the
deceased, upon which deduction as
done by the learned Tribunal on actual
income would be done. (Para 22 and
24)
Appeal allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:-

1. National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680

2. Savita Vs Bindar Singh & ors.; (2014) 4
SCC 505

3. Civil Appeal No. 2222 of 2024; Babita & ors.
Vs Karnataka Road Lines Pvt Ltd. & ors.