SUNDARI GANGOLA Vs. MAHINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal No.15 of 2021, has been reported to be defective, due to non furnishing of the certified copy of the impugned judgments, would stand over ruled, for the reason being that in the connected Second Appeal No.16 of 2021, the certified copy of the judgment has been supplied with and which is common to both the appeals. Hence, the defects stand over ruled.

(2.) This is plaintiffs/appellants' second appeal, which is arising out of the judgment and decree, which was rendered by the learned court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Almora in Civil Suit No.82 of 2013, Jagdish Lal (subsequently succeeded by the present appellants) vs. Mahindra Singh Chauhan and another on 22.09.2015, wherein the plaintiffs/appellants, have given a challenge to the sale deed dated 01.04.2004. The suit in question was adjudicated by the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Almora; by partially decreeing the suit and declaring the sale deed to be void in relation to the 9 muthis of land only and for rest of the land, which was also the subject matter of the suit and the sale deed, the suit was dismissed. As against the partial dismissal of suit, an appeal which was preferred by the plaintiff/appellants, against the partial dismissal of their suit on 22.09.2015 against the sale deed of 01.04.2004, defendants/respondents filed a cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C., which has been decided by the judgment of 07.11.2020 in Civil Appeal No.42 of 2015. By way of Civil Appeal No.42 of 2015, which has been allowed and as a consequence thereto, the suit of the plaintiff/appellants have been dismissed qua the decree, which was rendered by the trial court in the Original Suit on 22.09.2015.

(3.) The counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants in the two Second Appeals have submitted, that under the strength of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the ratio as propounded in para 13 of the judgment reported in State Bank of India and others vs. S.N. Goyal,2008 8 SCC particularly the reference has been made to para 13 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereunder:-