# Rameshavar Dayal Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1098
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 6771 of 2024
- **Bench:** Dr. Ajay Kumar-Ii
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rameshavar-dayal-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52619
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved
by the revisionist-informant for summoning
opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 as additional
accused in a case under Sections 498-A and 306
IPC, when the allegations against them in the
F.I.R. and depositions of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were
general and omnibus in nature.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319
- Summoning of additional accused -
Degree of satisfaction - "More than prima
facie case" - General and omnibus
allegations - Dowry death - Matrimonial
dispute - Scope of revisional jurisdiction
- Order refusing summoning affirmed.

Held:

The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an
extraordinary and discretionary power, which is
required to be exercised sparingly and only
where strong and cogent evidence emerges
during trial indicating involvement of a person
not already facing trial. Mere suspicion or
probability of complicity is insufficient. [Paras 711]

For summoning a person under Section 319
Cr.P.C., the degree of satisfaction of the Court
must be much higher than a prima facie case,
though it need not reach the level required for
conviction. The existence of more than a prima
facie case is a sine qua non. [Paras 10-11]

In matrimonial and dowry death cases, relatives
of the husband cannot be prosecuted merely on
the basis of general, vague, and omnibus
allegations of dowry demand and harassment.
Courts must exercise caution and ensure that
specific allegations with particulars are disclosed
against such relatives. [Paras 12-15]

In the present case, although opposite parties
nos. 2 to 4 were named in the F.I.R., they were
exonerated
during
investigation,
and
the
charge-sheet was filed only against the husband
of the deceased. The depositions of P.W.-1 and
P.W.-2 did not disclose any new, specific, or
distinct role of opposite parties nos. 2 to 4
beyond the allegations already made in the
F.I.R. [Paras 16-17]
11 All. Rameshavar Dayal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1099
The medical evidence indicated that the
deceased died due to ante-mortem hanging,
with only a ligature mark on the neck and no
other
ante-mortem
injuries,
prima
facie
indicating that the death was not homicidal.
[Para 18]
The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence
on record, rightly concluded that the allegations
against opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 were
general and omnibus, and that not even a prima
facie case, much less the higher standard
required under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was made
out against them. The impugned order rejecting
the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was a
speaking order and did not suffer from any
illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error.
[Paras 19-23]

In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High
Court declined to re-appreciate factual findings
where the Trial Court had taken a plausible view
based on the evidence. [Paras 21-24].
Criminal
revision
was
accordingly
dismissed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014)
3 SCC 92 - relied on; Vikas v. State of
Rajasthan, (2014) 3 SCC 321 - relied on;
Juhru and Others v. Karim and Another,
AIR
2023
SCC
1160
-
relied
on;
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of
Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 - relied on;
Shivani v. State of U.P. and Another,
Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 451 of 2020, decided on 12.09.2023 -
relied on; Mirza Iqbal @ Goly and Another
v. State of U.P. and Another, (2022) 16
SCC 697 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal
Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Summoning of additional accused; More than
prima
facie
case;
General
and
omnibus
allegations; Dowry death; Matrimonial dispute;
Relatives of husband; Revisional jurisdiction.

Case Arising From
Order
dated
28.10.2024
passed
by
the
Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court
(Crime Against Women), Budaun in Sessions
Trial No. 2049 of 2023 (State of U.P. v. Anil),
arising out of Case Crime No. 324 of 2023,
under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, Police
Station Ujhan

## Text

1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
looked into. All these consideration are
enough and prima facie, the sufficient
material is there for framing the charge
under Section 307 against opposite party
nos. 2 to 6.

25. In view of reasons mentioned
above,
the
impugned
order
dated
11.4.2025,
passed
by
the
learned
Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions
Trial No.04 of 2025 (State Vs. Subedar
Singh and other), arising out of Case
Crime No.18 of 2024, under Sections
147, 148, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 of
IPC, Police Station Khutahan, District
Jaunpur, whereby the Trial Court has
discharged the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6
from the offence under Sections 307 IPC
is, hereby set aside. The opposite party
Nos. 2 to 6 have to be charged also
under Section 307 IPC to face trial.

26.
With
these
observation
this
criminal revision is, hereby, allowed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1098
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6771 of 2024

Rameshavar Dayal ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sanjive Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Nagendra Kumar Singh

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting
the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved
by the revisionist-informant for summoning
opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 as additional
accused in a case under Sections 498-A and 306
IPC, when the allegations against them in the
F.I.R. and depositions of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were
general and omnibus in nature.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319
- Summoning of additional accused -
Degree of satisfaction - "More than prima
facie case" - General and omnibus
allegations - Dowry death - Matrimonial
dispute - Scope of revisional jurisdiction
- Order refusing summoning affirmed.

Held:

The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an
extraordinary and discretionary power, which is
required to be exercised sparingly and only
where strong and cogent evidence emerges
during trial indicating involvement of a person
not already facing trial. Mere suspicion or
probability of complicity is insufficient. [Paras 711]

For summoning a person under Section 319
Cr.P.C., the degree of satisfaction of the Court
must be much higher than a prima facie case,
though it need not reach the level required for
conviction. The existence of more than a prima
facie case is a sine qua non. [Paras 10-11]

In matrimonial and dowry death cases, relatives
of the husband cannot be prosecuted merely on
the basis of general, vague, and omnibus
allegations of dowry demand and harassment.
Courts must exercise caution and ensure that
specific allegations with particulars are disclosed
against such relatives. [Paras 12-15]

In the present case, although opposite parties
nos. 2 to 4 were named in the F.I.R., they were
exonerated
during
investigation,
and
the
charge-sheet was filed only against the husband
of the deceased. The depositions of P.W.-1 and
P.W.-2 did not disclose any new, specific, or
distinct role of opposite parties nos. 2 to 4
beyond the allegations already made in the
F.I.R. [Paras 16-17]
11 All. Rameshavar Dayal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1099
The medical evidence indicated that the
deceased died due to ante-mortem hanging,
with only a ligature mark on the neck and no
other
ante-mortem
injuries,
prima
facie
indicating that the death was not homicidal.
[Para 18]
The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence
on record, rightly concluded that the allegations
against opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 were
general and omnibus, and that not even a prima
facie case, much less the higher standard
required under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was made
out against them. The impugned order rejecting
the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was a
speaking order and did not suffer from any
illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error.
[Paras 19-23]

In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High
Court declined to re-appreciate factual findings
where the Trial Court had taken a plausible view
based on the evidence. [Paras 21-24].
Criminal
revision
was
accordingly
dismissed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014)
3 SCC 92 - relied on; Vikas v. State of
Rajasthan, (2014) 3 SCC 321 - relied on;
Juhru and Others v. Karim and Another,
AIR
2023
SCC
1160
-
relied
on;
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of
Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 - relied on;
Shivani v. State of U.P. and Another,
Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 451 of 2020, decided on 12.09.2023 -
relied on; Mirza Iqbal @ Goly and Another
v. State of U.P. and Another, (2022) 16
SCC 697 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal
Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Summoning of additional accused; More than
prima
facie
case;
General
and
omnibus
allegations; Dowry death; Matrimonial dispute;
Relatives of husband; Revisional jurisdiction.

Case Arising From
Order
dated
28.10.2024
passed
by
the
Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court
(Crime Against Women), Budaun in Sessions
Trial No. 2049 of 2023 (State of U.P. v. Anil),
arising out of Case Crime No. 324 of 2023,
under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, Police
Station Ujhani, District Budaun.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Sri Sanjive Kumar Gupta
For the State: Learned A.G.A.
For Opposite Parties: Sri Nagendra Kumar Singh,
Sri Rameshwar Dayal

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjive Kumar Gupta,
learned counsel for the revisionist and
learned A.G.A. for the State. None is
present on behalf of private opposite
parties.

2. Instant Criminal Revision has been
preferred challenging the order dated
28.10.2024 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court (Crime
against Women), Budaun in S.T. No. 2049
of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Anil) arising out
of Case Crime No.324 of 2023, under
Sections 498-A, 306 IPC, Police Station
Ujhani,
District
Budaun,
whereby
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
moved by the revisionist/informant has
been rejected.

3. The facts giving rise to the present
criminal
revision
in
short
are
that
revisionist/informant lodged an FIR by
moving a written complaint against his sonin-law Anil (who was married to his
daughter Vineeta on 09.11.2016) alongwith
his father Pappu @ Rishipal, mother Nanhe
@ Rambeti and Sudha Devi (Nanad). In his
complaint, it has been alleged that he had
married his daughter with Anil as per
Hindu customs and traditions and had spent
Rs. 04 lakhs in the marriage, yet Vineeta's
husband and Anil, father-in-law Pappu @
Rishipal, mother-in-law Nanhe @ Rambeti
1100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and sister-in-law Sudha Devi were not
happy with the expenditure and they
demanded a motorcycle as additional
dowry. The revisionist/informant alleged
therein that son-in-law and their family
members were mentally and physically
harassing his daughter for demand of
motorcycle as additional dowry. They
threatened to kill Vineeta for arranging
second marriage of Anil. Many times the
dispute between the parties were settled
through Panchayats, yet her matrimonial
family members used to tease and torture
her regularly and in the meantime, two
children, one son and one daughter, were
born out of their wedlock. On 14.06.2024
at about 04:00 in the evening, information
through phone call was received by
Prempal (uncle of deceased and brother of
informant) that Vineeta has been murdered
by strangulation by her in-laws. On
receiving
this
information,
informant,
informant?s brother Prempal, son Umesh
and informant?s wife Virawati and others
villagers reached to matrimonial home of
Vineeta and they found that police had
already sent the dead body for postmortem
to Budaun. They reached the postmortem
office, and seeing Vineeta's dead body after
postmortem, they found injury marks on
her body and neck. He is fully convinced
that
above
mentioned
persons
have
murdered her daughter for additional
demand of dowry within 06 years 07
months and 06 days of her marriage. On the
aforementioned
written
complaint
of
revisionist/informant,
first
information
report as Case Crime No. 324 of 2023 was
registered on 23.06.2023 in the concerned
police station against named accused.

4. After completion of investigation,
the investigating officer has submitted
chargesheet only against accused Anil,
while exonerating the other named accused
Pappu @ Rishipal, Nanhe @ Rambeti and
Sudha Devi on finding no involvement of
these
named
accused.
After
taking
cognizance of the chargesheet, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions, and
during trial statements of PW-1 and PW-2
were recorded and thereafter an application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved,
which has been rejected by means of
impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by
impugned order present criminal revision
has been preferred by the first informant-
revisionist.

5. It has been argued by learned
counsel for the revisionist that during trial
PW-1
Rameshwar
Dayal
(revisionist/informant) and PW-2 Prempal
(brother of the informant and uncle of the
deceased)
in
their
depositions
have
supported
the
prosecution
version
regarding the involvement of opposite
parties- 2 to 4 in the crime. Both of these
witnesses have stated on oath that opposite
parties- 2 to 4 alongwith main accused Anil
were consistently demanding motorcycle as
additional dowry, and on account of nonfulfillment of their demand, they were
jointly harassing and torturing Vineeta. It
has also been argued that opposite parties-2
to 4 were named in the FIR, and even
during the course of the investigation,
informant -revisionist and other witnesses
including Prempal have supported the
prosecution version in their statements
recorded
under
Section
161
Cr.P.C.
However, the Investigating Officer has
wrongly separated their names from the
investigation.
PW-1
and
PW-2
have
consistently deposed regarding demand of
additional
dowry
in
the
shape
of
motorcycle by opposite parties- 2 to 4 and
harassment of deceased Vineeta on account
of
non-fulfillment
of
said
additional
demand of dowry. The learned trial court
11 All. Rameshavar Dayal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1101
has failed to appreciate the correct facts and
circumstances of the case and has also
failed to appreciate the statements on oath
of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding involvement
of opposite parties-2 to 4 in the commission
of said crime, and has passed the impugned
order in a mechanical manner. It was lastly
urged that present Criminal Revision may
kindly be allowed and opposite parties-2 to
4 may kindly be summoned to face trial
alongwith main accused Anil.

6.
Per
contra,
learned
A.G.A.
vehemently opposed the present criminal
revision. According to learned A.G.A., the
court below has correctly appreciated the
testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and has
rightly come to the conclusion that from
their depositions no ground to summon
opposite parties- 2 to 4 has been made out.
It has been urged that no good ground to
interfere in the impugned order is made
out. Learned A.G.A. thus urged for
dismissal of present criminal revision.

7.
Before
considering
the
rival
submissions of the parties it would be
appropriate to refer judgment of Apex
Court, wherein scope of Section 319
Cr.P.C. has been elaborately discussed.
Apex Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State
(2014) 3 SCC 92 has observed that power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary
and an extraordinary power. It is to be
exercised sparingly and only in those cases
where the circumstances of the case so
warrant. It is not to be exercised because
the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of
the opinion that some other person may
also be guilty of committing that offence.
Only where strong and cogent evidence
occurs against a person from the evidence
led before the court that such power should
be exercised and not in a casual and
cavalier manner.

8. Apex Court in the case of Hardeep
Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 92, in para no.12 has held as
under:

"Section 319 of Cr.P.C springs
out of the doctrine judex damnatur cum
nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned
when guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine
must be used as a beacon light while
explaining the ambit and the spirit
underlying the enactment of Section 319
Cr.P.C".

9. Apex Court in the case of Vikas vs.
State of Rajasthan (2014) 3 SCC 321, has
observed that Section 319 Cr.P.C demands
more circumspection by the trial court
while exercising it's power, since it confers
an extraordinary power and should be used
by the Court very sparingly thereby
ensuring that principles of the rule of law
and
basic
tenets
of
criminal
law
jurisprudence are not vitiated.

10. Apex Court in the case of Juhru
and others Vs. Karim and Another AIR
2023 SCC 1160, has further reiterated that
the power of summoning under Section 319
of Cr.P.C. should not be exercised
routinely, and the existence of more than a
prima facie case is sine qua non for
summoning an additional accused. The
relevant paragraph No.16 is reproduced as
under:-

"16. It is, thus, manifested from a
conjoint reading of the cited decisions that
power
of
summoning
under
Section
319CrPC is not to be exercised routinely
and the existence of more than a prima
facie case is sine qua non to summon an
additional accused. We may hasten to add
that with a view to prevent the frequent
misuse of power to summon additional
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused under Section 319CrPC, and in
conformity
with
the
binding
judicial
dictums referred to above, the procedural
safeguard can be that ordinarily the
summoning of a person at the very
threshold of the trial may be discouraged
and the trial court must evaluate the
evidence against the persons sought to be
summoned and then adjudge whether such
material, more or less, carry the same
weightage and value as has been testified
against those who are already facing trial.
In the absence of any credible evidence, the
power under Section 319CrPC ought not to
be invoked."

11. In view of the aforesaid settled
propositions of law, this Court is of the
considered opinion that a person can only
be summoned as an accused, when the trial
Court,
after
analyzing
the
evidence
available on record strongly feels that there
is sufficient and overwhelming evidence
available on record and it is expedient for
justice to summon him as accused. At the
time of summoning under Section 319
Cr.P.C., the Court has to see that there is a
strong and cogent evidence against such
person and not merely probability of his
complicity. The degree of satisfaction of
the Court is much stricter. The test that has
to be applied is one which is more than
prima facie, case as exercised at the time of
framing of charge, but short of satisfaction
to an extent that the evidence if goes
unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Only
in such situation, the trial Court, using its
extraordinary jurisdiction, may summon a
person as an accused in the interest of
justice.

12.
Apex
Court
in
Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam Vs. The State of Bihar
(2022) 6 SCC 599, while relying upon K.
Subba Rao Vs. State of Telangana has
given a note of caution that courts should
be careful in proceedings against distant
relatives
in
crimes
pertaining
to
matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths.
The relatives of the husband should not be
roped in on the basis of omnibus
allegations unless specific allegations in the
crime are made out.

13. Apex Court in Shivani Vs. State
of U.P. and another in Criminal Appeal
No. Nil of 2023, arising out of S.L.P
(Criminal) No.451 of 2020, vide order
dated 12.09.2023 has set-aside the order of
trial court, whereby brother-in-law and
sister-in-law of the deceased lady were
summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to
face trial in a case of dowry death. The
Apex Court in this case found that the
investigating
agency
had
not
found
involvement of appellants and allegations
of harassment against appellants were only
omnibus in nature.

14. Apex Court in Mirza Iqbal @
Goly and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and
another, (2022) 16 SCC 697 has set-aside
the FIR and chargesheet filed against
brother-in-law (Dewar) and mother-in-law
(Sas) of the deceased lady in a dowry death
case. Apex Court found that except vague
and bald allegations against appellants i.e.
brother-in-law (Dewar) and mother-in-law
(Sas), there were no specific allegations
disclosing the involvement of appellants to
prosecute them in the alleged offence of
dowry death.

15. It is thus apparently clear that no
prosecution of relative of the husband of a
deceased lady in a dowry death case can be
sustained merely on the basis of general
and omnibus allegations of dowry demand
and harassment. Therefore, law on the issue
of prosecution of accused persons on the
11 All. Rameshavar Dayal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1103
basis of general and omnibus allegation in
matrimonial matter, and/or dowry deaths
cases is now more or less well settled.

16. Now turning to the merits of the
case, I have carefully gone through the
record and find that opposite parties- 2 to 4
were named in the FIR. The said FIR was
lodged with a delay of 9 days. However,
finding no involvement of named accused/
opposite parties- 2 to 4, their names were
separated from the investigation and
chargesheet was filed only against husband
of deceased namely Anil. After framing of
charges,
the
revisionist/informant
has
examined himself as PW-1 and his uncle
Prempal as PW-2. Both these witnesses i.e.
PW-1 and PW-2 have stated in their
depositions that opposite parties-2 to 4
were not happy with the dowry given at the
time of marriage and were demanding one
motorcycle in additional dowry. The
opposite parties-2 to 4 were physically and
mentally harassing and torturing the
deceased Vineeta, on account of nonfulfillment of demand of additional dowry
and used to say to her that they will murder
her and arrange second marriage of accused
Anil. These allegations levelled in their
depositions are similar to that levelled in
FIR. No new fact has emerged in their
depositions regarding any specific demand
of additional dowry and/or harassment of
deceased with any date, time and place.
These allegations against opposite parties-2
to 4 are general, vague and omnibus
allegations only.

17. It has also come in the depositions of
PW-1 and PW-2 that both of these witnesses
were not present during the last rituals of the
deceased, which were performed by her inlaws. It is also born out of record that they
received information of death of Vineeta,
only prior to her postmortem, meaning
thereby inquest report of deceased might
have
been
prepared
on
someone?s
information and only after preparing the
inquest report, the dead body of the deceased
might have been sent for postmortem. Copy
of inquest report has not been placed on
record by the revisionist. In the crossexamination of PW-2, it has specifically been
stated that it was accused Anil who has
demanded dowry in his presence, therefore,
role of only accused Anil is specific.

18. Postmortem of the deceased was
conducted on 15.06.2023 and in the opinion
of autopsy surgeon, the cause of death of
deceased was asphyxia, as a result of antemortem hanging. The deceased was having
only one single ante-mortem injury in the
shape of ligature mark on her neck. No other
ante-mortem injury was found on her body.
A perusal of postmortem report prima facie
reveals death of deceased by hanging, which
is not a homicidal death.

19. Thus in view of the above
discussions, it is apparently clear that all the
allegations against opposite parties-2 to 4 are
general and omnibus without referring to any
date, time and place as well as nature of
offence. For summoning of an accused under
Section 319 Cr.P.C., the standard of evidence
must be much higher than prima facie case,
thought it may not be sufficient to convict the
accused persons. But from the perusal of
evidence on record, I find that there is not
even a prima facie case against opposite
parties- 2 to 4 and that is why, learned
trial court has rightly rejected the
application of the revisionist/informant.
The learned trial court while rejecting the
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of
the revisionist /informant has passed a
speaking order and I find no illegality or
irregularity or jurisdictional error in the
impugned order.
1104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. On the pointed query, being made
to the learned counsel for the revisionist, as
to whether there was any jurisdictional
error committed by the court below in
rejecting the application moved by the
revisionist/applicant under Section 319
Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionist
only argued on factual score.

21. This Court in exercise of the
revisional jurisdiction cannot embark upon
the inquiry with regard to the facts of the
case, particularly when the Court below
had applied its mind and taken a view
which does not appears to be perverse and
palpable while rejecting application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.

22. The applicant in the present
revision, is trying to insist this revisional
Court to go into the factual issues, which
cannot be gone into in the present facts of
the case, as this Court is of firm opinion
that there exist sufficient material which
itself shows that the powers exercised by
the Court below while rejecting his
application, does not suffer from any
illegality and infirmity.

23. The learned counsel for the
revisionist has also not disputed the legal
position, so culled out by Apex Court in
relation to the scope and ambit of the
powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and
further he has not been able to bring on
record, any material to show that the
findings recorded by Court below while
rejecting
the
application
of
the
revisionist/applicant,
suffers
from
any
perversity or illegality. No good ground is
made out, so as to justify interference by
this Revisional Court.

24. Accordingly, the present revision
lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1104
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 623 of 2019

Subodh Kumar Agarwal ...Appellant
Versus
Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Anil Kumar Paney, Arvind Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Chhaya Gupta, Sujeet Kumar, Udayan
Nandan

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the mother the sole owner of the
disputed property, and were the gift deeds
executed in favour of the plaintiff valid, or void
due to fraud, coercion, undue influence, or
interpolations.
2. Whether the defendant a co-owner of the
property or merely a licensee, and did the
alleged permanent constructions make the
licence irrevocable.

1. Whether the plaintiff entitled to
possession of the property through mandatory
injunction after revocation of licence.

2. Whether the appellate court could
award damages under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Section 96, Order 6 Rule 4, Order 13 Rule
4, Order 41 Rule 33, Section 99 - Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 - Section 123 -
Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Section 54 -
Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Sections
58, 60 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section
6 - First Appeal U/section 96 of the CPC -
challenging the impugned judgment and decree
- Gift deeds - plaintiff filed an original Suit -
seeking mandatory injunction and mesne profits