Smt. Juveda vs Smt. Anju Singh

Pankaj Mithal, J.—The land in dispute was purchased by Smt. Anju Singh, plaintiff/respondent vide registered sale deed dated 10.7.01 from one Mahendra and Raghav, who were the recorded tenure-holders.

Smt. Juveda, defendant/appellant instituted a suit for cancellation of the above sale deed. The said suit stands dismissed.

Smt. Juveda had separately filed a suit for declaration of her rights over the land in dispute u/s 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (hereinafter referred as Act). The said suit has also been dismissed and she has not been held to have perfected her rights by adverse possession but the matter is pending consideration in appeal wherein a stay order is operating staying the operation of the impugned judgment and directing the parties to maintain status quo.

Simultaneously, Smt. Anju Singh plaintiff/respondent instituted Original Suit No. 178 of 2002 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from interfering in her possession over the suit land. During the pendency of the said suit an order of injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo remained operative but ultimately the suit was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff/respondent has been allowed. The judgment and order of the trial court has been set aside and the suit for permanent injunction has been decreed with the finding that plaintiff/respondent is undisputedly the owner of the suit land by virtue of the sale deed dated 10.7.01 and that she is also in possession of the same.

The submission of Sri A.K. Sachan, learned Counsel for the defendant/appellant is that such an injunction would affect the order of status quo operating in appeal filed by the defendant/appellant in a suit for declaration u/s 229-B of Act. It will also affect the ultimate result of the said appeal as in the said suit defendant/appellant is claiming rights by adverse possession which are dependent upon the possession. In short his submission is that the lower appellate court ought not to have decreed the suit till the decision of the aforesaid appeal.

Sri Bhagwati Singh learned Senior counsel has appeared on behalf of plaintiff/respondent.

Having heard the parties, I am of the view that in a suit u/s 229-B of the Act or the appeal arising there from the right of the defendant/appellant as on the date of cause of action has to be determined and the present possession of the parties would not in any way affect the said right of the defendant/appellant.

As far as the present appeal is concerned, it is not disputed that the sale deed dated 10.7.01 has been held to be valid and the judgment and order holding it to be valid has become final and conclusive, meaning thereby that the plaintiff/respondent is the owner of the land in dispute. Once the plaintiff/respondent is the owner of the land in dispute he is legally entitle to have possession over the same. The finding with regard to possession of the lower appellate court is that the plaintiff/respondent is in possession. The said finding being a finding of fact requires no interference in second appeal.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the second appeal. No substantial question of law arises for determination. It is accordingly dismissed. However, any finding recorded herein or in the judgment and order of the lower appellate court would not prejudice the right of the parties in the pending appeal arising from suit u/s 229-B of the Act which shall be decided by the court concerned expeditiously in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the findings recorded in this litigation.

Appeal dismissed with the above observation.