# Ram Lal (Dead) & Ors v. Smt. Vijay Laxmi & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 42
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-13
- **Case number:** Second Appeal No. 12 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-lal-dead-ors-v-smt-vijay-laxmi-anr-52996
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Section 100 - Learned lower appellate
court could not have granted relief of
permanent injunction without recording
2 All. Ram Lal (Dead) & Ors. Vs. Smt. Vijay Laxmi & Anr.
43
finding
of
possession
of
plaintiff/
respondent no.1 on basis of pleadings,
evidence
and
material
on
record,
particularly when land in dispute was not
identifiable because suit was filed for
permanent injunction and cancellation of
sale deed for same land - Even if, plaintiffrespondent no.1 may be in possession on
said portion on basis of decree of partition
passed by competent court in accordance
with law because land on which relief of
permanent injunction granted was not
specifically in issue in instant proceedings
as land in dispute found unidentifiable -
Thus, impugned judgment and decree not
sustainable in eyes of law and set-aside.
(Para 18)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
working. Thus, there is no evidence on
record to show that A2, Rajeshwari Devi
was involved in criminality.

45. Certainty, the conduct also plays
a vital role to form a opinion as to
whether the accused is actually innocent
or not. As regards, AI, Manish Kumar is
concerned, it has come on record by way
of the deposition of DW1, Sudhir Kumar
that he made a telephonic call to her inlaws and apprised about the death of the
deceased (victim). His presence was also
shown in the house with the dead body of
the deceased (victim). It is also come on
record by way of deposition of DW1,
Sudhir Kumar, that the deceased (victim)
was taken for medical treatment by A1,
Manish Kumar. The aforesaid facts and
circumstances clearly go to show that
there is nothing abnormal so as to
indicate that the accused A1, had
committed criminality.

46. Nonetheless, there is nothing on
record either in the deposition of the
prosecution witness or otherwise so as to
suggest that A1, Manish Kumar and A2,
Rajeshwari Devi were involved in the
commission of the crime.

47.
Cumulatively
giving
anxious
consideration to the judgment and the order
passed by the learned trial court acquitting
the accused, this Court finds that the
learned trial court has not committed any
palpable illegality or perversity as the
learned trial court has appreciated each and
every aspect of the matter from the four
corners of law while acquitting the accused.
The view taken by the trial court is a
possible and plausible view based upon not
only the appreciation of the testimony of
the
prosecution
witnesses
and
the
documents so adduced therein but also
upon the cardinal principles of law which
govern the subject in question.

48. Thus, this Court has no option but
to concur that the judgment and order of
the trial court whereby the accused herein
has been acquitted.

49. Resultantly, no ground is made so
as to accord leave to appeal. Accordingly,
leave to appeal is rejected. As the leave to
appeal
stands
rejected,
thus,
the
Government Appeal preferred by the
appellant under Section 378(3) of the
Cr.P.C. and the appeal of the informant
under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. also
stands rejected.

50. The records be sent back to the
court below.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 42
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Second Appeal No. 12 of 2022

Ram Lal (Dead) & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Vijay Laxmi & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Bahar Ali, Ripu Daman Shahi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sabhapati Verma, Abha Bajpai, Amarendra
Kumar Bajpai, Rakesh Kumar Mishra,
Tapasya Bajpai, Vinod Kumar Singh

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Section 100 - Learned lower appellate
court could not have granted relief of
permanent injunction without recording
2 All. Ram Lal (Dead) & Ors. Vs. Smt. Vijay Laxmi & Anr.
43
finding
of
possession
of
plaintiff/
respondent no.1 on basis of pleadings,
evidence
and
material
on
record,
particularly when land in dispute was not
identifiable because suit was filed for
permanent injunction and cancellation of
sale deed for same land - Even if, plaintiffrespondent no.1 may be in possession on
said portion on basis of decree of partition
passed by competent court in accordance
with law because land on which relief of
permanent injunction granted was not
specifically in issue in instant proceedings
as land in dispute found unidentifiable -
Thus, impugned judgment and decree not
sustainable in eyes of law and set-aside.
(Para 18)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. SK. Golam Lalchand Vs Nandu Lal Shaw @
Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes & ors., Civil
Appeal
No.4177
of
2024,
order
dated
10.09.2024

2. Ram Balak Singh Vs St. of Bihar & anr., Civil
Appeal
No.1627
of
2016,
order
dated
01.05.2024

3. Anathula Sudhakar Vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead)
by Lrs. & ors.; (2008) 4 SCC 594, (Para 15)

4. Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande Vs Balkrishna
Rambharose Gupta & anr.; (2020) 19 SCC 119
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard, Shri Bahar Ali, learned
counsel for the appellants and Ms.Tapasya
Bajpai along with Shri Amarendra Kumar
Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondent
no.1.
None
appeared
on
behalf
of
respondent no.2.

2. This second appeal under
Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (herein-after referred as CPC) has been filed for
setting-aside the judgment and decree dated
14.10.2021/26.10.2021 passed in Civil
Appeal No.60 of 2013 (Smt. Vijay Laxmi
Vs. Ram Lal (Dead) substituted by his legal
heirs) by Additional District Judge, Court
no.6, Sitapur.

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

"1.
Whether
learned
first
appellate court fell in error while granting
permanent injunction without recording the
finding of possession of the plaintiff/
respondent while maintaining the dismissal
of suit for cancellation of sale deed?"

4.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants submitted that the suit for
permanent injunction and cancellation of
sale deed filed by the plaintiff-respondent
no.1 was dismissed by the trial court after
considering the pleadings, evidence and
material on record but the lower appellate
court, though maintained the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court to the
extent of dismissal of suit in regard to
cancellation of sale deed on the ground of
unidentifiablity of the portion of land i.e.
the land in dispute but held the plaintiffrespondent no.1 entitled for permanent
injunction and granted the relief of
permanent injunction on 1/4th western
portion of Gata No.233 without any
evidence and recording any finding of
possession of the plaintiff-respondent no.1
on the said portion. Thus, the submission is
that the judgment and decree passed by the
lower appellate court is not sustainable in
the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for
the plaintiff-respondent no.1 submitted that
the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffrespondent no.1 had entered into a family
settlement, on the basis of which they were
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in
possession
on
their
portion
and
accordingly she was in possession on the
land in dispute. The possession of the
parties has been decided on the basis of
Commission Report in the suit for partition.
Thus, the injunction has rightly been
granted in accordance with law as the
plaintiff-respondent no.1 is in possession
on 1/4th portion on the western side of
Gata No.233. It has further been submitted
that the sale deed, without partition could
not have been executed. However since that
part of judgment and decree passed by the
courts below has not been challenged by
the plaintiff-respondent no.1, the same is
not in issue in this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffrespondent no.1, on the basis of aforesaid
submissions, submitted that the permanent
injunction has rightly been granted by the
lower appellate court in accordance with
law. There is no illegality or error in the
impugned judgment and decree dated
14.10.2021. He relied on judgment and
order dated 10.09.2024 passed in SK.
Golam Lalchand Vs. Nandu Lal Shaw @
Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes
and Others; Civil Appeal No.4177 of
2024 & judgment and order dated
01.05.2024 passed in Ram Balak Singh
Vs. State of Bihar and Another; Civil
Appeal No.1627 of 2016, both by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7.
I
have
considered
the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records.

8.
The
suit
for
permanent
injunction and cancellation of sale deed
was filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.1
alleging therein that the land in dispute i.e.
Gata
No.233,
situated
in
village
Mansoorpur and Gata No.208, situated in
village Sitapur (out side the limits of Nagar
Palika Parishad) Pargana, Tehsil and
District- Sitapur coming from the ancestors
was recorded in the name of the plaintiffrespondent no.1 and co-tenure holder
Mukund Murari etc. in the record-of-rights.
Both the lands are situated nearby. There
was a family settlement between the
plaintiff-respondent no.1 and co-tenure
holders way back and on the basis of same
the parties were the owner and in
possession on their portion and accordingly
the
plaintiff-respondent
no.1
was
in
possession on 1/4th portion of Gata No.233
and 208. The defendant-respondent no.2, in
collusion with the recorded tenure holder
Ramji S/o Madan Gopal, purchased 1/12th
part through sale deed in Gata No.233,
having an area of 1.615 hec., on account of
which there was dispute between the
parties. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed
a suit for partition before the Assistant
Collector, 1st Class (Pargana Magistrate,
Sitapur), in which a preliminary decree was
passed by him and the Lekhpal of the area
was directed to submit the plan for partition
for final decree, in which defendantrespondent no.2 is also a party. Despite
information of the same she got the sale
deed executed which is liable to be setaside.

9. The suit was contested by the
predecessor-in-interest of the defendant
no.2/appellants
by
filing
the
written
statement denying the alleged partition and
knowledge of pendency of the suit for
partition. It was further stated that one of
co-tenure holders of Gata No.233 Ramji
S/o Madan Gopal executed the aforesaid
sale deed in consideration of Rs.50,000/- in
favour of the defendant-respondent no.2 on
20.01.2000 and accordingly the mutation
was also made as co-tenure holder. The
plaintiff-respondent
no.1
never
raised
2 All. Ram Lal (Dead) & Ors. Vs. Smt. Vijay Laxmi & Anr.
45
objection in regard to the said sale deed and
mutation. The defendant-respondent no.2
had executed the sale deed of the said part
of land in favour of the defendant no.1/
appellants through registered sale deed on
08.11.2007. In pursuance thereof they are
in possession on the land in dispute. It has
further been stated that in the application
for mutation filed by the defendant no.1/
appellants, except the plaintiff-respondent
no.1, none had filed the objection in the
court of Naib Tehsildar, Sadar-Sitapur. The
said mutation case has been decided in
favour of the defendant no.1/ appellants by
means of the order dated 05.05.2008. In
pursuance thereof striking out the name of
the defendant- respondent no.2, the name
of the defendant no.1/ appellants was
recorded. The plaintiff-respondent no.1
filed an appeal against the order dated
05.05.2008 in the court of Sub-Divisional
Officer, which has been dismissed by
means of the order dated 31.12.2008. Thus,
the said order is binding on her. The suit is
not maintainable on account of nonimplement of necessary parties. The land in
dispute is also not ascertainable. Thus, the
suit is liable to be dismissed with cost.

10. On the basis of pleadings of
parties eight issues were framed by the trial
court. Thereafter the evidence was adduced
by the parties. After considering the
pleadings, evidence and material on record,
the suit was dismissed by the trial court by
means of the judgment and decree dated
31.07.2013. Being aggrieved the civil appeal
was filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.1
before the lower appellate court. The lower
appellate court framed two points for
determination and partly allowed the appeal
granting relief of permanent injunction in
favour of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 on
1/4th portion on the western side of Gata
No.233. Hence, this second appeal has been
filed, which has been admitted on the
aforesaid substantial question of law.

11. The learned trial court, after
considering the pleadings of the parties,
evidence and material on record while
deciding the issue nos.1 and 2 i.e. "whether
the sale deed dated 12.11.2007 in dispute is
liable to be set-aside on the grounds stated in
the plaint" and "whether the plaintiff is owner
and in possession of the land in dispute" held
that Ramji, who was co-tenure holder of
plaintiff-respondent no.1, was in possession
on his portion on the basis of mutual
compromise and partition, had executed
registered sale deed to the defendant/
respondent no.2 on 21.01.2000 i.e. about 13
years ago and consequently her name was
recorded
in
the
revenue
records
as
Bhumidhar with non transferable rights and
co-tenure holder. The plaintiff-respondent
no.1 had not raised any objection on the said
mutation before the revenue court or filed any
suit for cancellation of sale deed. She has also
admitted that the land, which was purchased
by the defendant-respondent no.2 from Ramji
has been sold by her through registered sale
deed
in
favour
of
the
defendant
no.1/appellants on 12.11.2007. Thereafter the
name of defendant no.1/appellants has been
recorded in place of defendant-respondent
no.2 in the revenue records, therefore, once
the earlier sale deed dated 20.01.2000 has not
been challenged, the challenge to the
subsequent sale deed executed by the
defendant/respondent no.2 in favour of the
defendant no.1/appellants is misconceived
and not tenable and accordingly decided the
issues in negative against the plaintiffrespondent no.1 as she was also not found in
possession.

12. The plaintiff-respondent no.1,
being aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court, challenged
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the same in civil appeal before the lower
appellate court. The lower appellate court
confirmed the findings recorded by the trial
court in regard to the cancellation of sale
deed and rejected the contention of
plaintiff-respondent no.1 that final decree
has been passed by the concerned court on
07.08.2013 in the suit for partition, in
which she has got 1/4th portion on western
part of Gata No.233 on the ground that the
sale deed in question has been executed on
12.11.2007 and final decree has been
passed on 07.08.2013. Besides it, it has not
been informed by the plaintiff-respondent
no.1 as to which part of the land in dispute
has been sold by the defendant/respondent
no.2 to the defendant no.1/appellants
through sale deed i.e. the boundaries have
not
been
disclosed.
The
plaintiffrespondent no.1 has also not stated as to on
which portion of the land she was in
possession after mutual partition and as to
whether the sale deed of the said portion of
the land has been executed. It has also not
been clarified as to why the first sale deed
was not objected, whereas she could have
taken appropriate action at that time itself,
therefore
there
is
no
question
of
cancellation of sale deed in question.
However, after holding that there is no
ground of cancellation of sale deed on the
aforesaid grounds, which includes that the
boundaries of the land in dispute of the sale
deed in question have not been clarified
and the plaintiff-respondent no.1 was in
possession of which portion, granted relief
of permanent injunction on 1/4th western
portion of Gata No.233 on the ground that
the same has been given to her by the court
and she is in possession on the same,
contrary to the aforesaid findings and
recording any finding of possession of
plaintiff-respondent no.1 on the basis of
pleadings, evidence and material on record,
which is merely on the basis of contention
of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 and may be
on the basis of order passed by the court in
another proceeding, which could not have
been done without adducing any evidence
and
proof
thereof
in
the
present
proceedings.

13. It is also noticed that the suit
for permanent injunction and cancellation
of sale deed was filed in regard to the land,
the sale deed in question of which was
executed and as per findings recorded by
the lower appellate court itself, the said
land is not identifiable, therefore, once the
land was not identifiable which was
involved in the suit, it can not be said
without any cogent evidence that the
dispute in this suit is in regard to 1/4th
portion on the western side of Gata No.233,
therefore the relief of permanent injunction
could not have been granted by the lower
appellate court.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.
Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. and Others;
(2008) 4 SCC 594, has held that in a suit
for permanent injunction to restrain the
defendant from interfering with plaintiff's
possession, the plaintiff will have to
establish that as on the date of the suit he
was in lawful possession of the suit
property and defendant tried to interfere or
disturb
such
lawful
possession.
The
relevant paragraph 15 is extracted here-inbelow.

 "15. In a suit for permanent
injunction to restrain the defendant from
interfering with plaintiff's possession, the
plaintiff will have to establish that as on the
date of the suit he was in lawful possession
of the suit property and defendant tried to
interfere or disturb such lawful possession.
Where the property is a building or
2 All. Ram Lal (Dead) & Ors. Vs. Smt. Vijay Laxmi & Anr.
47
building with appurtenant land, there may
not be much difficulty in establishing
possession.
The
plaintiff
may
prove
physical or lawful possession, either of
himself or by him through his family
members or agents or lessees/licensees.
Even in respect of a land without
structures, as for example an agricultural
land, possession may be established with
reference to the actual use and cultivation.
The question of title is not in issue in such a
suit, though it may arise incidentally or
collaterally."

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the
case
of
Balkrishna
Dattatraya
Galande Vs. Balkrishna Rambharose
Gupta and Another; (2020) 19 SCC 119,
has held that the plaintiff has to prove
actual possession for grant of permanent
injunction and permanent injunction can be
granted only to a person who is in actual
possession of the property. The burden of
proof lies upon the first respondent-plaintiff
to prove that he was in actual and physical
possession of the property on the date of
suit.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of SK. Golam Lalchand Vs.
Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @
Nandu Lal Bayes and Others (Supra),
has held that the suit property which is
undivided is left with the co-owners to
proceed in accordance with law to get their
shares determined and demarcated before
making a transfer. It is of no assistance to
learned counsel for the respondent.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of
Bihar and Another (Supra), has held that
where the Consolidation Court has already
passed an order recognizing the rights of
one of the parties is not barred by Section
37 of the Consolidation Act and that the
Civil Court is not competent to either
ignore or reverse the order passed by the
Consolidation Officer once it has attained
finality. It is of no assistance to learned
counsel for the respondent.

18.
In
view
of
above
and
considering
the
over
all
facts
and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of
the view that the learned lower appellate
court could not have granted the relief of
permanent injunction without recording
a finding of possession of plaintiffrespondent
no.1
on
the
basis
of
pleadings, evidence and material on
record, particularly when the land in
dispute is not identifiable because the
suit was filed for permanent injunction
and cancellation of sale deed for one and
the same land. Even if, the plaintiffrespondent no.1 may be in possession on
the said portion on the basis of a decree
of partition passed by the competent
court in accordance with law because the
land on which the relief of permanent
injunction has been granted is not
specifically in issue in the instant
proceedings as the land in dispute in
these
proceedings
has
been
found
unidentifiable.
Thus,
the
impugned
judgment and decree passed by the lower
appellate court is not sustainable in the
eyes of law and liable to be set-aside.

19. The appeal is, accordingly,
allowed. The impugned judgment and
decree dated 14.10.2021/26.10.2021 is
hereby set-aside to the extent of grant of
relief of permanent injunction to the
plaintiff-respondent no.1 without disturbing
the remaining portion of the impugned
judgment and decree which shall remain
intact. No order as to costs.
----------
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 2 ILRA 48
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Second Appeal No. 42 of 2013

Juggi Lal ...Appellant
Versus
Guru Prasad ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ved Prakash Misra, Anuj Pandey, Nishant
Shukla, Vijay Krishna

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sampurnanand
Shukla,
Ashok
Kumar
Bhatnagar, Suresh Singh

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Order 41 - Rule 31 - Registration Act,
1908 - Sections 34 & 35 - A plea has been
taken if Will was executed on basis of
fraud, father of plaintiff-respondent could
have told about it before Registering
Authority in enquiry - Not taken before
Courts below - No evidence has been
adduced and pointed out by appellant -
D.W.2, witness of Will not given any
evidence
of
registration
of
Will
or
presentation of father of respondent
before registering authority and as per
endorsement on Will, executor has been
identified by D.W.2 and Patandeen - Thus,
misconceived, not tenable. (Para 25)
Perusal of judgment passed by lower
appellate court indicates no points of
determination have been framed but all 7
issues framed by trial court considered
separately
and
independent
findings
recorded
after
considering
pleadings,
evidence
and
material
on
record
-
Substantial compliance of rule - Findings
recorded
by
courts
below
regarding
parentage of respondent and fraud in
execution of Will are based on evidence on
record, does not suffer from any illegality.
(Para 27, 31)

Appeal dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta & ors. Vs
Ahemdabad Muncipal Corporation; (2024) 6
S.C.R. 594, (Para 30)

2. Badri & ors. Vs Jata Shankar & anr., Second
Appeal No.162 of 2011, order dated 03.02.2020

3. Dhannulal & ors. Vs Ganeshram & anr.;
2015(12) SCC 301, (Para 19)

4. Meena Pradhan Vs Kamla Pradhan & anr.;
2023 9 SCC 734, (Paras 10, 11)

5. Suryakunwari Vs Nanhu & ors.; 2019(37) LCD
2346, (Paras 11 to 16)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vijay Krishna,learned
counsel for the defendant-appellant and Sri
Ashok Kumar Bhatnagar, learned counsel
for the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The instant second appeal under
Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code
1908 (hereinafter referred as CPC) has
been filed against the judgment and decree
dated 23.01.1984 pased in Regular Suit
No.197/91(Guru Prasad versus Juggi Lal)
by the 6th Additional Munsif,Faizabad(now
Ayodhya) and judgment and decree dated
04.01.2013
passed
in
Civil
Appeal
No.044/1984(Juggi
Lal
versus
Guru
Prasad) by the Additional District Judge,
Court No.5,Faizabad(now Ayodhya).

3.
The
following
substantial
question of law has been formulated in this
appeal by means of the order dated
04.02.2013:-