Sunita Devi vs Kanyawati And Others

S.K. Mishra, J

Heard Mr. S.K.Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

In this writ application, the writ petitioner has prayed for quashing of the two concurrent findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge (J/D), Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, passed in Civil Suit No. 84 of 2018 and judgement dated 11.02.2021 passed by learned District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereafter referred to as 'The Code') has been rejected by the original court and the same has been upheld in an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code by the appellate court.

At this stage, learned counsel for the writ applicant submits that original recorded tenure holder was Ardash Singh, he sold the land to one Satish Rana. Satish Rana in turn, sold the land to one Man Singh, who died in the year 2016 and his legal heirs, the respondent no 1 to 3 have sold the land to the present petitioner on 18.09.2017. In the meantime, in the year 2011, a suit was initiated by one Ardash Singh against Satish Rana, which was decreed ex parte, and the sale deed executed by Adhar Singh in favour of Satish Rana has been set aside by a competent Civil Court and that order is not challenged as yet or set aside in any court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submits that there was a collusive suit but the petitioner has failed to file a copy thereof either before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division or before the learned Additional District, Khatima, even, that copy has not been filed in the writ application. Even, it has not been pleaded in the in the plaint that it is a collusive suit. So, in that view of the matter since the sale-deed on the basis of which Satish Rana acquired title and sold it to Man Singh, whose LRs in turn sold it to the petitioner, has been set aside by a competent court of civil jurisdiction, this Court comes to the conclusion that the concurrent findings of two courts i.e. learned Civil Judge (S/D) as well as the learned District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar cannot be interfered by any stretch of imagination. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has utterly failed to establish a prima facie case even for issuance of notice in this case.

There is no merit in the writ application. The same is dismissed in limine.

There shall be no order as to the costs.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted to the petitioner on proper application.