# Sukh Ram & Ors v. Smt. Narbada Devi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 572
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022
- **Case number:** Second Appeal No. 579 of 2010
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sukh-ram-ors-v-smt-narbada-devi-ors-41791
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100 - Order - I, Rule 8, Order
XVII-Rule 3, Order XLI - Rule 27 - Plaintiff's
Second Appeal - challenging the validity &
correctness of - Judgment & decree respectively
by court below - Locus standi - earlier property
in suit was donated to a Sadhu/Saint (i.e. Baba
Ganga Nath) who belongs to a Jatav community
and died without issue - plaintiffs appellants
claims title over there being they also belongs to
Jatav Community - court held that, merely
because Baba Ganga Nath belongs to Jatav
Community will not vest with appellants any
indefeasible right in the property in suit - they
have no Locus standi - held - Encroachers
cannot be vested with any legal right or title by
any court - hence, Second Appeal fails and is
dismissed. (Para - 11, 12)

(B) Civil Law- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100, Order - I, Rule 8, Order XVIIRule 3, Order XLI - Rule 27 - Plaintiff's
Second Appeal - challenging the validity &
correctness of - Judgment & decree respectively
by court below - substantial question of law - in
absence of substantial question of law arises
from pleadings of the parties - hence, Second
Appeal fails and is dismissed. (Para - 12)

Second Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

## Text

572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the present case, we have no option but to
concur with the view taken by the learned
Sessions Judge.

30. We find that it is not a case worth
granting leave to appeal. The application
for granting leave to appeal is rejected.

31. Since the application for granting
leave to appeal has not been granted,
consequently, present government appeal
also stands dismissed at the admission
stage itself.

32. Records of the present case be
sent back to the concerned court below.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 572
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.05.2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Second Appeal No. 579 of 2010

Sukh Ram & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Narbada Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri S.S. Shukla, Sri Dharmendra Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
..

(A) Civil Law- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100 - Order - I, Rule 8, Order
XVII-Rule 3, Order XLI - Rule 27 - Plaintiff's
Second Appeal - challenging the validity &
correctness of - Judgment & decree respectively
by court below - Locus standi - earlier property
in suit was donated to a Sadhu/Saint (i.e. Baba
Ganga Nath) who belongs to a Jatav community
and died without issue - plaintiffs appellants
claims title over there being they also belongs to
Jatav Community - court held that, merely
because Baba Ganga Nath belongs to Jatav
Community will not vest with appellants any
indefeasible right in the property in suit - they
have no Locus standi - held - Encroachers
cannot be vested with any legal right or title by
any court - hence, Second Appeal fails and is
dismissed. (Para - 11, 12)

(B) Civil Law- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100, Order - I, Rule 8, Order XVIIRule 3, Order XLI - Rule 27 - Plaintiff's
Second Appeal - challenging the validity &
correctness of - Judgment & decree respectively
by court below - substantial question of law - in
absence of substantial question of law arises
from pleadings of the parties - hence, Second
Appeal fails and is dismissed. (Para - 12)

Second Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant and perused the record.

2. This second appeal has been
preferred
by
the
plaintiffs
appellant
challenging the validity and correctness of
the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2002
and 14.8.2002 respectively passed by the
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Court No.3, Aligarh in Original Suit No.
475 of 1982 whereby the suit filed by the
plaintiffs appellant was dismissed. The first
appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 136 of
2002 preferred
against
the
aforesaid
judgment and decree in the aforesaid
Original Suit No. 475 of 1982 confirmed
the findings recorded by the trial Court vide
its judgment and decree dated 13.4.2010
and 28.4.2010.

3. The judgments and decrees passed
by the courts below are assailed on the
ground that the appellate Court has not
approached the matter in controversy,
properly and justly. It is stated that the
Courts below have passed the judgments
8 All. Sukh Ram & Ors. Vs. Smt. Narbada Devi & Ors.
573
and decrees under appeal in this second
appeal on conjectures and surmises.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants
has argued that in aforesaid suit no. 32 of
1971, Roshan Lal versus Ram Charan, he
was not the representative of Jatav
community and that the Courts below have
failed to frame the proper issue, even
though the specific pleading was taken, suit
no. 32 of 1971 should have been filed
against the defendants under the provision
of Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. as it is not against
an individual person. It is also stated that
the property in question was not in
possession of the defendants respondents
when the suit was filed; that the Court
below
has
not
considered
the
Commissioner's report in the suit and that
the findings recorded by the courts below
are against the material and evidence on
record.

5. It appears from the record that one
Roshan Lal filed Original Suit No. 32 of
1971, Roshan Lal versus Ram Charan for
possession and injunction interalia stating
therein that the land in dispute was
purchased by way of registered sale-deed
from one Pratap Chand Jain, who had
purchased the aforesaid land from one
Sukh Ram alias Sukha.

6. Ram Charan contested the suit by
filing written statement in which he denied
the averments made in the plaint. However,
the trial Court decreed the suit on the basis
of oral and documentary evidence produced
before it vide its judgment and order dated
31.7.1978 directing the defendants to
handover the possession of the property in
suit to the plaintiffs. Civil Appeal No. 250
of 1978 was filed against the judgment and
order dated 31.7.1978 of the trial Court
before the first appellate Court, which was
dismissed vide judgment and order dated
6.11.1979; that the plaintiffs appellants
came to know about the judgment and
decree in suit no. 32 of 1971 in execution
case, hence they filed original suit no. 475
of 1981, Sukh Ram versus Smt. Narbada
Devi for cancellation of judgment and
decree dated 31.7.1978 passed by Munsif
in original suit no. 31 of 1971 as well as the
judgment and decree dated 6.11.1979
passed by the lower appellate Court in Civil
Appeal No. 250of 1978 on the ground that
the aforesaid suit between Roshan Lal and
Ram Charan was collusive.

7.
 The
defendants
respondents
contested the suit by filing written
statement in which they denied the
averments made in the plaint and stated that
the suit filed by the plaintiffs appellants
was barred by resjudicata.It appears from
the record that during the suit proceedings
Amin Commissioner was appointed, who
inspected the spot and submitted his report
in both the suits i.e. Original suit no. 32 of
1971 as well as Original suit no. 475 of
1982 showing that the land in dispute is
surrounded by boundary , trees and
Chhapar etc.

8. It also appears that the case of the
plaintiffs appellants before the Court below
was that the property in suit was donated to
Baba Ganga Nath, who was a Sadhu /Saint
who had constructed a well on the property
and that the Jatav community claim
possession of the property in suit prior to
1996.

9. The claim of the plaintiffs
appellants was contested on the ground that
they have no cause of action to file suit
against the defendants; that the suit was
misconceived and based upon totally
concocted allegations and wrong facts. In
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
defence it was stated by the defendants
respondents
that
Roshan
Lal,
the
Predecessor-in-interest of defendants Ist set
was owner in possession of the property in
suit which was part and parcel of his
bhumidhari plot no. 516 area 1 bigha; that
the defendants IInd set took unlawful
possession of portion of the said plot 12
years back which compelled Roshan Lal to
file suit no.l 32 of 1971 for possession of
the said land. In the circumstances, the suit
was decreed on 31.7.1978 and Civil Appeal
No. 25 of 1978 of the defendants IInd set
filed against the said decree was dismissed
on 6.11.1979 by the first appellate Court.
Review Application No. 65 of 1979 filed
by the defendants IInd set against the
judgment and order of the first appellate
Court was also rejected on 23.10.1982. It
was also denied that there was any contest
between the defendants IInd set and
Roshan Lal, the Predecessor-in-interest of
the defendants Ist set and that the decree in
Original Suit No. 32 of 1971, Roshan Lal
versus Ram Charan and others had attained
finality, which had been put for possession
in Execution Case No. 43 of 1983 in the
Court of Munsif Koil, Aligarh. It was also
their case that the defendants had brought
forward the present plaintiffs simply to
resist the delivery of possession of the land
in suit to the defendants Ist set and as a
matter of fact the defendants IInd set, who
had filed the suit in the name of the
plaintiffs, had no concern whatsoever with
the property in suit; that Roshan Lal
purchased plot no. 518 along with other
plots from Sri Pritam Chandra Jain and
others through sale-deed dated 11.2.1960;
that in their turn Sri Pritam Chandra Jain
etc. purchased the property sold by them to
said Sri Roshan Lal from one Sukhram
alias Sukha, who was the bhumidhar in
possession of plot no. 518 and other plots
through sale-deed dated 12th August, 1959
registered on 30.8.1959 as such the
defendants and their Predecessor-in-interest
have all along been in possession of plot
no. 518 Qasba Oil including the property in
suit till the date when the defendants IInd
set took unlawful possession of the same in
the first week of January, 1971.

10. The Court has put a question to
the learned counsel for the appellants as to
what is their status and locus standi in the
matter, it is replied by the learned counsel
for the appellants that the plaintiffs
appellants are belonged to Jatav community
and Baba Ganga Nath also belonged to
Jatav community, hence they have interest
in suit property.

11. Having heard learned counsel for
the appellants and on perusal of the record
it appears that the defendants respondents
have proved the purchase of plot no. 518
along with other plots by a registered saledeed and has been in possession of it. The
plaintiffs appellants have no locus standi in
the matter. The land is said to have been
donated to Baba Ganga Nath which could
not be proved by the plaintiffs appellants. It
was not inherited by any person either by
way of will or by any other instruments nor
was transferred by Baba Ganga Nath even
if it is presumed to have been donated to
him. Merely because Baba Ganga Nath
belonged to Jatav community will not vest
with the appellants any indefeasible right in
the property in suit when they have no
locus standi in the matter. No right or title
has been passed to them by the said Baba
Ganga Nath who was admittedly a
Sadhu/Saint. In fact the plaintiffs appellants
have utterly failed to sustain their claim
made in the suit plaint that they are in
possession over the property in suit as its
rightful
owners
having
legal
title.
Encroachers can not be vested with legal
8 All. NABCO Prod. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
575
right or title by any court. Both the Courts
below have given concurrent findings of
facts against the plaintiffs appellants.

12. For all the reasons stated above, in
my considered opinion, no substantial
question of law arises from the pleadings of
the parties in this second appeal filed by the
plaintiffs appellants. It is accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 575
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ Tax No. 997 of 2022

NABCO Prod. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, Sri Satya Vrata Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Gaurav Mahajan (Senior S.C.), Sri
Sudarshan Singh

A. Tax Law - Violation of principles of
natural justice - Income Tax Act, 1961-
Sections 148 & 148A(d) - The system has
been introduced and is being implemented by
the respondents and, therefore, it is their
primary duty to immediately remove short
comings, if any, in the system. For own
wrongs of the respondents, the assessee
can not be allowed to suffer and put to
harassment.
Prevailing
state
of
affairs
clearly reflects that in the absence of any
effective system of accountability of the
erring
officers,
the
harassment
of
the
assessees and breach of principles of natural
justice
by
the
Officers
is
resulting
in
uncontrolled
situation.
The
practice
of
frequently violating principles of natural
justice, non consideration of replies of
assessees under one pretext or the other or
rejecting it with one or two lines orders
without recording reasons for rejection, is
gradually increasing which needs to be taken
care of immediately by the respondents at the
highest level, otherwise prevailing situation of
arbitrary approach and breach of principles of
natural justice may not only adversely affect
the assessees who pay revenue to the
Government,
but
also
may
develop
a
perception amongst people/assessees that it
is difficult to get justice from the authorities
in statutory proceedings. (Para 7)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present petition assails orders dated
30.03.2022 and 06.06.2022, passed by
Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(1), Kanpur.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J. & Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 and Sri Gaurav Mahajan,
learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
respondent nos. 2 & 3.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following reliefs :

"a) To issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the
IMPUGNED
ORDER
Dt.
30.03.2022
passed u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 by the Respondent No. 2;

b) To issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the
IMPUGNED
ORDER
Dt.
06.06.2022
passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
by the Respondent No. 2;

c) To issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the