SATYADEV AND ORS. Vs. MOHAN LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission of second appeal as well as on framing of substantial question of law and perused the records. Original Suit No. 1003/1996 Satyadev and another v/s. Mohan Lal and others, was dismissed by judgment dated 6.2.2007 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Mathura, against which Civil Appeal No. 25/2007, Satyadev and another v/s. Mohan Lal and others, was preferred. Said appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 19.11.2014 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura. Against these judgments of the trial Court and the first appellate Court, this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs of the original suit.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that first appellate Court had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and dismissed the appeal without considering the fact and legal points.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents contended that only point of determination between the parties during trial was as to whether the written document executed for relinquishing rights of plaintiff -appellants needs registration or not. He further contended that this was not transfer deed nor any consideration was paid for writing this deed. Said deed was only relating to description of family arrangement, which do not require any registration. Therefore the judgment of trial Court was not erroneous. He further contended that learned first appellate Court had considered the facts, circumstances and arguments of the parties and after appreciating them, find that there is no error in the judgment of trial Court, so appeal was dismissed. There is no error in judgment of first appellate Court. Therefore, appeal should not be admitted and should be dismissed in limine.