# Ramautar & Ors v. Awadhesh Narayan Singh & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 1334
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-04
- **Case number:** Second Appeal No. 716 of 2024
- **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramautar-ors-v-awadhesh-narayan-singh-anr-52546
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100 - Order 22 - Rule 10 - U.P.
consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section
-
53(b)
-
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Sections 158 & 164 - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
Rule 148 & 149 - Specific Relief Act,
1963 - Section - 31, - Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 - Section 107 -
Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17 &
17(1)(e) - Limitation Act,1963 - Section
- 5 - Two second appeals arise from two civil
suits and appeals - Original Suit of year 2012
was filed by plaintiff-appellants challenging a
registered sale deed executed by respondent
No. 1 in favour of respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4
- & anr.Suit of year 2013 was filed by
purchasers from respondent No. 4, claiming a
decree for permanent injunction - Both suits
were decided by separate judgments - Two
civil appeals - were filed by the appellants -
dismissed by separate judgments - court finds
that, the appellants claimed that Laxmi Devi,
the original owner, transferred possession to
them in 2006, making the 2011 sale deed
invalid, - and the defendants plea that the
appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence
of this transfer - held, finding recorded by
both of the court below on all disputed
aspects involved in the lis, being pure finding
of fact, the same do not require any
interference in second appellate jurisdiction
u/s 100 of CPC - Accordingly, appeals are
dismissed
- stating that no substantial
question of law arises for consideration by
this court. (Para - 13, 15, 19, 20)

Second Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
account of the appellant-Punjab National
Bank along with accrued interest upto date.
The Executing Court shall facilitate such
refund forthwith.

43. This Court records all its
appreciation for both the learned counsel in
very ably assisting the Court in deciding
these old appeals.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 1334
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Second Appeal No. 716 of 2024
With
Second Appeal No. 717 of 2024

Ramautar & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Awadhesh Narayan Singh & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri
Akhilesh
Kumar,
Sri
Suresh
Chandra
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ishir Sripat

Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100 - Order 22 - Rule 10 - U.P.
consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section
-
53(b)
-
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 -
Sections 158 & 164 - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
Rule 148 & 149 - Specific Relief Act,
1963 - Section - 31, - Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 - Section 107 -
Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17 &
17(1)(e) - Limitation Act,1963 - Section
- 5 - Two second appeals arise from two civil
suits and appeals - Original Suit of year 2012
was filed by plaintiff-appellants challenging a
registered sale deed executed by respondent
No. 1 in favour of respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4
- & anr.Suit of year 2013 was filed by
purchasers from respondent No. 4, claiming a
decree for permanent injunction - Both suits
were decided by separate judgments - Two
civil appeals - were filed by the appellants -
dismissed by separate judgments - court finds
that, the appellants claimed that Laxmi Devi,
the original owner, transferred possession to
them in 2006, making the 2011 sale deed
invalid, - and the defendants plea that the
appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence
of this transfer - held, finding recorded by
both of the court below on all disputed
aspects involved in the lis, being pure finding
of fact, the same do not require any
interference in second appellate jurisdiction
u/s 100 of CPC - Accordingly, appeals are
dismissed
- stating that no substantial
question of law arises for consideration by
this court. (Para - 13, 15, 19, 20)

Second Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Amresh Chandra Pandey Vs Deputy Director
of Consolidation, Mirzapur Camp. Robertsganj,
Sonbhadra & ors., 2007 (102) RD 440,

2. Umesh Chand & ors.Vs Board of Revenue,
U.P. Allahabad, 2002 All LJ 680,

3. Ram Sunder & ors.Vs Joint Director of
Consolidation, Sultanpur & ors., 2021 (6) ADJ
141,

4. Ramanad & ors.Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Basti & ors., 1993 RD 90,

5. Rikhvev & ors.Vs A.D.M. (Finance), Azamgarh
& ors., 2011 (1)) ADJ 629,

6. Mohd. Fasih Vs Munir Khan, 1987 R.D. 36,

7. Kamti Devi (Smt.) & anr.. Vs Poshi Ram
(2001) 5 SCC 311,

8. Thiagarajan Vs Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil,
(2004) 5 SCC 762,

9. Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs Savitribai Sopan
Gujar & ors., (1999) 3 SCC 722,
9 All. Ramautar & Ors. Vs. Awadhesh Narayan Singh & Anr.
1335
10. Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Vs P. Shanmugama (2005) 9 SCC
232,

11. St. of Kerala Vs Mohd. Kunhi (2005) 10 SCC
139,

12. Madhavan Nair Vs Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10
SCC 553,

13. Harjeet Singh Vs Amrik Singh (2005) 12 SCC
270,

14. Gurdev Kaur & ors.Vs Kaki & ors., 2007 (1)
SCC 546.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

The Appeal

1. These two second appeals arise
out of two civil suits and two civil appeals.
Original Suit No. 176 of 2012 was filed by
plaintiff-appellants
challenging
the
registered sale deed dated 16.12.2011
executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of
respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The other
original suit being Original Suit No. 318 of
2013 was filed by the purchasers from
respondent No. 4, claiming a decree for
permanent prohibitory injunction. Both the
aforesaid suits were decided by separate
judgments
dated
01.10.2021
and
22.10.2021 respectively. Two civil appeals
respectively being Civil Appeal No. 8 of
2022 and Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2022 were
filed by the present appellants. Both the
civil appeals have been dismissed by
separate judgments dated 25.07.2024.

Counsel Heard

2. I have heard Shri Akhilesh
Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants
in both the appeals and Shri Rahul Sripat,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
Ishir Sripat, learned counsel appearing
through caveat for respondent No. 5 in
Second Appeal No. 717 of 2024 and
respondent No. 2 in Second Appeal No.
716 of 2024.

Fact of the case

3. The case of the present
appellants is that one Laxmi Devi was
bhumidhar of the property in dispute and
by executing a document dated 25.04.2006,
she delivered possession of the same to the
appellants in lieu of Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees
three lac) and the appellants raised
constructions thereon and are residing
therein. The sale deed of 2011 was
challenged on the ground that Laxmi Devi,
after
delivering
possession
to
the
appellants, ceased to be owner of the
property and, therefore, sale deed executed
by her in favour of the vendees was invalid
for want of title. It is not in dispute that one
of the purchasers from Laxmi Devi also
executed a sale deed in favour of
contesting-respondent, who is represented
before this Court through Shri Sripat and
that
the
said
purchaser
sought
his
impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 of
Code of Civil Procedure. The impleadment
was allowed and, consequently, the suit was
contested in between the ultimate purchaser
as well as the present appellants.

Submissions on behalf of
Appellants

4. The precise submission of
learned counsel for the appellants in both
the appeals is that transfer of possession by
Laxmi Devi in their favour would be a
"deemed sale" as per Section 164 of Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1950. In support of his
submission, learned counsel for appellants
has placed reliance upon judgment of this
1336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court in Amresh Chandra Pandey vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Mirzapur Camp. Robertsganj, Sonbhadra
and others, 2007 (102) RD 440. Further
submission is that Laxmi Devi never
appeared in witness box, therefore, the
defence of the defendants would be deemed
as "not proved" and, hence, the transaction
of sale would become invalid.

Submissions on behalf of
Respondents

5. Per contra, Shri Sripat submits
that except a photostat copy of a document
dated 25.04.2006 brought on record as
paper No. 12-C, no evidence was led from
the appellants side to prove alleged vesting
of title in them. He submits that the
document 12-C was neither a piece of
primary evidence nor secondary evidence
as per provisions of Indian Evidence Act,
1872 and, even if it is read, it recites some
understanding as regards delivery of
possession in between Laxmi Devi and the
present appellants, which would not fall in the
definition, meaning and import of "deemed
sale" even as per Section 164 of Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,
1950. He further submits that non-appearance
of Laxmi Devi in witness box would be of no
significance when the transferees filed separate
written statements and proved the sale deed
executed in their favour. Further submission is
that the disputed sale deed has been
recognized by mutation courts and names of
the purchasers have been recorded in the
revenue records, which were dealt with by
courts below. Further submission is that the
revenue entries being sufficient to establish
title and possession and having not being set
aside, the appellants would have no case.

6. In support of his submission, Shri
Sripat has placed reliance upon the judgement
of this Court in the case of Umesh Chand and
others vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad,
2002 All LJ 680. He further submits that even
for establishing a case of deemed sale under
Section 164 of Act of 1950, compliance of
Rules 148 and 149 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 is a
statutory mandate, however, the procedure
contained therein has not been followed in the
present case.

7. Learned Senior Counsel has also
placed reliance upon the judgment of this
Court in Ram Sunder and others vs. Joint
Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and
others, 2021 (6) ADJ 141 and submits that
placing reliance upon the judgment of Umesh
Chand (supra), this Court has taken a view
that transfer of an agricultural land cannot be
made by a mode, except as provided under
law, which may be by way of sale, gift etc.

8. Learned Senior Counsel further
submits that judgment of this Court in the case
of Amresh Chandra Pandey (supra) as cited
on behalf of appellant was in fact a follow up
of another judgment in Ramanad and others
vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti
and
others,
1993
RD
90,
however,
subsequently, this Court in Rikhvev and others
vs A.D.M. (Finance), Azamgarh and
others, 2011 (1)) ADJ 629 has discussed
the judgment in Ramanand (supra) and
has taken a view that in the said judgment
there was no discussion as to why the
provisions of Registration Act were not
applicable and the only reason given in
the judgment was that Section 5 of the
Limitation Act had been made applicable
in view of Section 53-B of Uttar Pradesh
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

Analysis of rival contentions in the
light of statutory provisions and authorities
cited at the bar
9 All. Ramautar & Ors. Vs. Awadhesh Narayan Singh & Anr.
1337
9. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, this Court finds it
appropriate to refer Section 164 of Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1950 as well as Rules 148
and 149 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952.
The same are reproduced as under:

"164.
Transfer
with
possession by a bhumidhar to be
deemed a sale. - Any transfer of
any holding or part thereof made by
a bhumidhar by which possession
is transferred to the transferee for
the
purpose
of
securing
any
payment of money advanced or to
be advanced by way of loan and
existing or future debt or the
performance of an engagement
which may give rise to a pecuniary
liability,
shall,
notwithstanding
anything contained in the document
of transfer or any law for the time
being in force, be deemed at all
times and for all purposes to be a
sale to the transferee and to every
such sale the provisions of Sections
154 and 163 shall apply."
"148. Section 164.- The
Lekhpal shall as soon as he learns
of a transfer mentioned in Section
164 submit a report lo the Assistant
Collector in-charge of the SubDivision mentioning therein-

(a) the name, parentage and
address of the transferor and the
transferee,
(b) the number and area of
the plots transferred,
(c) the date of the transfer
of possession, and
(d)
the
nature
of
the
transfer."
149. (1) On receipt of the
report
from
the
Lekhpal
or
information from any interested
party the Assistant Collector incharge of the Sub-Division shall
call upon the parties to show cause
why action under Section 164
should not be taken in respect of
the land in question.
(2) After hearing the parties
and making such further inquiry as
he
considers
necessary,
the
Assistant
Collector
shall
pass
suitable orders and shall also order
the
Correction
of
papers
accordingly."

10. This Court, in paragraph 23 of
the judgment in Umesh Chand (supra),
after
considering
various
authorities
dealing with Section 164 of the Act of
1950, has laid down as follows:

"In view of what has been
stated
above,
the
aforesaid
judgment of learned single Judge
does not support the contention of
the petitioners since the decisions
relied in the aforesaid case do not
lay down any proposition as
referred to in the judgment of
learned single Judge. It is true that
a document which purports to
transfer of immovable property and
is not registered, will attract the
provisions of Section 164 and will
be deemed to be sale but only when
the
value
of
the
Immovable
property is not Rs. 100 or more.
Thus, the aforesaid law laid down
by
learned
single
Judge
in
Bashishtha Pandey's case has to be
confined to cases in which the
value of property is not more than
Rs. 100. If the value of property is
1338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
more than Rs. 100 a transfer can be
effected only by a registered
instrument as laid down in Data
Ram v. Additional Civil Judge,
1978 ALJ 840 : Kedar v. District
Judge, 1978 RD 307, as noted
above.
In
the
present
case
admittedly the amount "in question
is Rs. 6,750. hence the interest
could have been transferred only by
registered deed."

11. Further, this Court in paragraph
21 of judgment in Ram Sunder (supra)
observed as follows:

"21. This court is of the
considered view that the transfer of
an agricultural land cannot be made
by a mode, except as provided
under law, which may be by way of
sale, gift etc. It is also apparent
from reference made in various
Sections of Act of 1950, such as
section 154 provides that no
bhumidhar shall have the right to
transfer by sale or gift, section 155
provides that no bhumidhar shall
have the right to mortgage any land
belonging to him as such where
possession of the mortgaged land is
transferred or is agreed to be
transferred
in
future
to
the
mortgagee as security for the
money advanced or to be advanced.
Similarly in Section 157-A and
157-AA, the transfer of the land by
way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease
has been referred. The alleged
mode by which the name of
opposite party no.3 was recorded is
not provided anywhere. Therefore
the transfer of an agricultural land,
being an immovable property, can
be made by a bhumidhar with
transferable
rights
only
in
accordance with the Transfer of
Property
Act
and
Indian
Registration Act and not otherwise.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents no.3/1 and 3/2 could
also not show any other mode of
transfer and validity of the alleged
transfer under any law. This court
in the case of, Umesh Chand and
others Versus Board of Revenue,
Allahabad and others; 2002(2)
AWC 932, has held as under in
paragraph 15:-
"15. ............... No right or
interest can pass in immovable
property in a manner contrary to
provisions of Transfer of Property
Act
and
Indian
Registration
Act............."

12. As far as judgment cited on
behalf of appellants, reference to paragraph
Nos. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of
judgment of this Court in Rikhvev (supra)
can be made. The same are extracted
below:-

"43. Contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners
is that in view of the decision of
this Court in Ramanand & others
vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Basti & others
1993 RD 90 (H), non-registration
of the document will not affect the
sale-deed.
44.
In
the
case
of
Ramanand (supra) it has been laid
down that if a bhumidhar has taken
some money from some one and in
this regard possession on some land
has been given to such a person,
this type of transaction would be
deemed to be valid transfer and the
9 All. Ramautar & Ors. Vs. Awadhesh Narayan Singh & Anr.
1339
provisions of Registration Act or
Evidence Act cannot be applied in
consolidation
proceedings,
particularly in transaction under
Section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act. A reading of the judgment
would show that that there is no
discussion at all as to why the
provisions of Registration Act are
not applicable. The only reason
given is that under Section 53-B of
U.P.C.H. Act, only Section 5 of the
Limitation Act has been made
applicable and there is no mention
of
either
Registration Act or
Evidence Act.
45.
Except
making
a
reference to Section 53-B of
U.P.C.H. Act, there is absolutely no
discussion in the judgment. In my
considered view, there is no ratio in
the aforesaid judgment. The Court
has jumped to the conclusion
without any discussion that the
provisions of Registration Act or
Evidence Act are not applicable.
Attention of the Court was not
drawn to anyone of the earlier
decisions on the point. Its attention
was not drawn towards earlier
judgment in Ajeet & another vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation
& others, 1982 RR 50. In this case,
a
dispute
arose
whether
an
unregistered mortgage deed attracts
Section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act or not. After considering the
earlier judgments of this Court
including Kedar v. District Judge,
Banda, 1978 RD 307 and Data
Ram v. Additional Civil Judge
Bulandshahr and another, 1978
ALJ 840, it has been held that
transfer
of
possession
under
unregistered mortgage deed will
not amount ''sale' under Section
164 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The
transfer of immovable property for
a value of Rs.100/- either by sale or
by mortgage necessarily requires
registration under the Registration
Act otherwise such a transfer is
invalid. These decisions were not
brought to the notice of the Hon'ble
Judge who delivered the judgment
in the case of Ramanand (supra).
The judgment given in the case of
Ramanand (supra) is therefore per
incuriam, as it was given in
ignorance of the earlier binding
precedents.
Except
a
solitary
decision in the case of Ramanand
(supra), all other decisions have
taken different view i.e. registration
of document of transfer for a value
more than Rs.100/- is necessary,
under the Registration Act, even for
agricultural land. There is good
deal of discussion in Umesh Chand
and others vs. Board of Revenue,
U.P., at Allahabad and others, 2002
(93) R.D. 264. In this case, after
noticing the various provisions of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and that of the
Transfer of Property Act, the Court
has laid down as follows:
"16. Thus it is clear that the
provisions of Transfer of Property
Act are fully applicable while
effecting a transfer of holding by
bhumidhar. In the Act wherever it
is
mentioned
that
particular
meaning given in Transfer of
Property Act or Indian Registration
Act be not given to a transaction.
Specific provision has been made
in U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act. Reference has
been made to Section 158 of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land
1340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Refoms Act which provides that
lease for a terms exceeding one
year or from year to year may be
made
either
by
a
registered
instrument or in the prescribed
manner.
Section
158
of
U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act has overriding effects
to the provisions of Transfer of
Property
Act
and
Indian
Registration Act whereas Section
107 of Transfer of Properties Act
provides that a lease of immovable
property from year to year, or for
any terms exceeding one year can
be made only by the registered
instrument. Section 158 clearly
contemplates that applicability of
Transfer of Property Act as well as
Indian Registration Act is not ruled
out in application to U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and land Reforms Act
and the provisions are overridden
in specific case. Apart from section
59 of Transfer of Property Act,
Section 17 of Indian Registration
Act also provides that registration
of instruments of value of more
than 100 Rupees or more of
immovable property is required
when such instrument purport or
operate to create, declare, assign,
limit or extinguish, whether in
present or in future, any right, title
or interest, whether vested or
contingent. Section 17(1) of Indian
Registration Act is quoted below:
17. Document of which
registration is compulsory.--(1)
The following documents shall be
registered if the property to which
they relate is situate in a district in
which, an if they have been
executed on or after the date on
which, Act No. XVI of 1964, or the
Indian Registration Act, 1866, or
the Indian Registration 1871, or the
Indian Registration Act, 1877, or
this Act came or comes into force,
namely :
(a) instrument of gift of
immovable property;
(b) other non-testamentary
instruments
which
purport
or
operate to create, declare assign,
limit or extinguish, whether in
present or in future, any right, title
or interest, whether vested or
contingent, of the value of one
hundred rupees and upwards, to or
in immovable property;
(c)
non-testamantary
instruments which acknowledge the
receipt
or
payment
of
any
consideration on account of the
creation, declaration, assignment
limitation or extinction of any such
right, title or interest; and
(d) lease of immovable
property from year to year, or for
any term exceeding one year, or
reserving a yearly rent;
(e)
non-testamentary
instruments
transferring
or
assigning any decree or order of a
Court or any award when such
decree or order or award purports
or operates to create, declare,
assign, limit or extinguish, whether
in present or in future, any right,
title or interest, whether vested or
contingent, of the value of one
hundred rupees and upwards, to or
in immovable property:
Provided that the State
Government
may,
by
order
published in the official Gazette
except from the operation of this
sub-section any lease executed in
any district, or part of a district, the
9 All. Ramautar & Ors. Vs. Awadhesh Narayan Singh & Anr.
1341
terms granted by which do not
exceed five years and the annual
rents reserved by which do not
exceed fifty rupees."

46. Thereafter, the Court
has noticed a Division Bench
decision in Mohd. Fasih v. Munir
Khan, 1987 R.D. 36, wherein it has
been laid down that transfer of
possession alone is not sufficient to
attract such Section 164 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

47.

The
object
of
registration a document is to give
notice to the world that such a
document has been executed, to
prevent fraud and forgery and to
secure a reliable and complete
account of all transactions effecting
the title to the property.

48. The Registration Act
strikes a document and not a
transaction. It extends to the
whole of India except State of
Jammu & Kashmir. Its Section
17 provides a document of
which
registration
is
compulsory.
Section
17(1)(e)
provides that non-testamentary
instruments
transferring
or
assigning any any right, title or
interest of the value of one
hundred rupees and upwards, to
or in immovable property shall
be considered.

49. Viewed as above, on
the admitted case of the petitioners
that
deed
in
question
is
unregistered
document,
the
provisions of Section 164 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, assuming
what the petitioners are saying is
correct, will not be attracted."

13. This Court is of the considered
opinion that except photostat copy of some
alleged document relied upon by the
appellants but denied by Laxmi Devi by
filing her written statement, there is no
document conferring title upon the present
appellants. Even if, photostat copy is read
for any purpose in the present case, there is
nothing on record to establish that the
procedure provided under Rules 148 and
149 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition
&
Land
Reforms
Rules,
1952
was
followed. Under such circumstances and
following the ratio laid down in authorities
discussed above, the ingredients of a
deemed sale covered by Section 164 of
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1950 were not proved in
accordance with law. The judgment in
Ramanand (supra) has already been held
"per incurium" and, hence, its follow up in
Amresh Chandra Pandey (supra) would be
of no avail.

14. This Court further records that in
order to sustain a claim for cancellation of a
sale deed, as per statutory mandate contained
under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963, it has to be found as a void or voidable
document. In the instant case, none of the
pleas raised by the appellants is sufficient to
hold the sale deed of 2011 either void or
voidable. The revenue entries being also
subsisting in favour of the purchasers, this
Court is of the considered opinion that right,
title, interest and possession of the property
forming subject matter of lis vested lawfully in
favour of purchasers from Laxmi Devi. Even
if, there was some understanding between
Laxmi Devi and the present appellants, at the
best there could be a lis between them as
1342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
regards refund of money allegedly paid by the
appellants to Laxmi Devi, but even no such lis
came into existence.

15. In view of above discussion, the
findings recorded by both the courts below on
all disputed aspects involved in the lis, being
pure findings of fact, the same do not require
any
interference
in
second
appellate
jurisdiction under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure.

16. In Kamti Devi (Smt.) and Anr. v.
Poshi Ram (2001) 5 SCC 311, the Supreme
Court came to the conclusion that the finding
reached by the first appellate court cannot be
interfered with in a second appeal as no
substantial question of law would have flowed
out of such a finding. In Thiagarajan v. Sri
Venugopalaswamy B. Koil, (2004) 5 SCC
762, the Supreme Court has held that the High
Court in its jurisdiction under Section 100
C.P.C. is not justified in interfering with the
findings of fact and that it is the obligation of
the courts of law to further clear intendment of
the legislature and not frustrate it by excluding
the same and where findings of fact by the
lower appellate Court are based on evidence,
the High Court in second appeal cannot
substitute its own findings on reappreciation of
evidence merely on the ground that another
view was possible.

17. Similar view has been taken in
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitribai Sopan
Gujar and others, (1999) 3 SCC 722 by
observing that disturbance in findings of fact
would be contrary to limitations imposed by
section 100 C.P.C. The Supreme Court again
reminded in Commissioner, Hindu Religious
&
Charitable
Endowments
vs.
P.
Shanmugama (2005) 9 SCC 232 that the High
Court has no jurisdiction in second appeal to
interfere with the findings of fact. The Apex
Court, in State of Kerala v. Mohd. Kunhi
(2005) 10 SCC 139 reiterated the same
principle by observing that by such interference,
the High Court would go beyond the scope of
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

18. In Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar
Pillai (2005) 10 SCC 553, the Supreme Court
observed that even if the first appellate court
commits an error in recording a finding of fact,
that itself will not be a ground for the High
Court to upset the same. In Harjeet Singh v.
Amrik Singh (2005) 12 SCC 270, the Apex
Court, with anguish, observed that the High
Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the
findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court
and the lower appellate Court regarding
readiness and willingness to perform part of
contract in its jurisdiction under Section 100
C.P.C.

19. The view taken in the aforesaid
decisions has been reiterated by the Apex Court
in Gurdev Kaur and others vs. Kaki and
others, 2007 (1) SCC 546.

20. No substantial question of law
arises for consideration by this Court in both the
second appeals.

21. Both the second appeals fail and
are, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 1342
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Government Appeal No. 306 of 1993

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Ishaq & Ors. ...Respondents