SUGRA Vs. PARVASH ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suits filed by the plaintiff Parvash Ali were dismissed, vide common judgment and order dated 02.08.2006 passed by 1st Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar. Aggrieved against the same, first appeals were preferred before the District Judge, which appeals were allowed by the lower appellate court, vide order dated 19.09.2006. Aggrieved against the same, second appeals were preferred by the defendant -appellant, which were decided by this Court, vide order dated 19.05.2014. The relevant portion of the order dated 19.05.2014 sought to be reviewed by the review -applicant is reproduced herein below for convenience:

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the review -applicant sought to assail the impugned order on the grounds, inter alia that while deciding and allowing the second appeals, this Court proceeded on the assumptions that the tenant has executed conveyance by putting his thumb impression when no witness identified his thumb impression amongst other thumb impressions on the conveyance tendered in evidence; admittedly, there was no relationship of deceased -defendant as tenant with the plaintiff and, hence, no deed was executed by the defendant, which was an error apparent on the face of record. Such error calls for review of the impugned judgment, as different modes are prescribed for proving the document. Hon'ble Court, while dealing with substantial question of law with regard to minority of the plaintiff at the time of entering into agreement, has rightly opined that no plea of minority of plaintiff was taken in the written statement and, as such, in the absence of such a plea, no question on the basis thereof could be framed at any stage. The conclusion leads to the inference that the substantial question of law was negated against the defendant -appellant, although, both the substantial questions of law have not been decided in sequence. The second appellate court cannot travel beyond it's scope on the questions of facts and law.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the review -applicant placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baljinder Singh vs. Rattan Singh, : (2008) 16 SCC 785, Babulal & others vs. Shankar Lal & others,, (2008) 17 SCC 638, Rur Singh (dead) through LRs. & others vs. Bachan Kaur, : (2009) 11 SCC 1 and Chilakamarthi Mohana Rao vs. Patibanda Soma Sundara Rao, : (2007) 15 SCC 398.