Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2059 (ALL)

Kanwal Singh v. Shakuntala Devi

2014-07-14

DINESH GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Dinesh Gupta, J. – This second appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 14.7.1999 passed by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No.93 of 1990 (Kanwal Singh vs. Shakuntala Devi) dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant arising out of Original Suit No.1086 of 1987 allowing the suit by IInd Additional Civil Judge, Ghaziabad vide order dated 9.8.1990. 2. The brief facts, which give rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter called as the respondent) filed a Suit No.1086 of 1987 against the defendant-appellant (hereinafter called as the appellant) for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the property in suit, which is 200 Sq. yard plot situate in Indra Enclave, Loni Border, Ghaziabad. The suit was contested by the appellant and the suit was decreed by the court below. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred second appeal, which was registered as Civil Appeal No.93 of 1990 and was transferred to the Court of VIIIth Additional District and Session Judge, Ghaziabad and was also dismissed vide order dated 14.7.1999. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the courts below have wrongly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, which was filed through power of attorney holder, who was granted only limited power through the deed. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that both the courts below have wrongly relied upon the evidence filed by the respondent and wrongly held that the respondent is the owner in possession over the property in suit and both the court below have failed to consider the evidence adduced by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that since the suit was filed by an unauthorized person, having no authority to file suit and the suit was not maintainable and this plea can be taken even at the time of hearing of second appeal relying upon 1971 AIR (SC) 2018 [The State of Rajasthan vs. Rao Raja Kalyan Singh (dead)]. He also relied upon 2014 (1) CLJ 645 (Sebastio Luis Fernandes vs. K.V.P. Shastri). 5. He also relied upon 2014 (1) CLJ 645 (Sebastio Luis Fernandes vs. K.V.P. Shastri). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon AIR 2006 (64) ALR 194 (SC)=2006 (43) AIC 577 [Hero Vinoth (minor) vs. Seshammal] on the point of substantial question of law under Section 100 C.P.C. and submitted that the misconception of document is also a substantial question of law. 6. He has also relied upon AIR 1952 Madras 559 (P.M. Desappa Nayanim Varu and others vs. Ramabhaktula Ramiah and others) on the point of special power of attorney. He has also relied upon AIR 2006 (SC) 293= 2006 (65) ALR 18 (Sum.) =2006 (44) AIC 69. (State Bank of India and another vs. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the courts below have wrongly held that the society from whom the plaintiff purchase the plot was a registered society in absence of any documentary evidence. 8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has filed certain case law. Although, they were not placed before the Court at the time of hearing of the appeal and they were given later on. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding and no substantial question of law? is involved in this appeal and appeal deserves to the dismissed. 10. I am unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Since there is a concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below on the basis of evidence available on record. The respondent is the owner in possession over the property in dispute. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to show me that there is any perversity in the judgment passed by the appellate court. He further failed to show me that any evidence is misread, misinterpreted or left to be considered. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.