SMT. PRAMILA SINGH GAUR Vs. VINOD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

(2.) The instant second appeal has been filed under Sec. 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 2013, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (SD), Court No.1, Sitapur in Civil Suit No.962 of 2009 as well as judgment and decree dated 112016, passed by learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (EC Act), Sitapur in Civil Appeal No.16 of 2013, whereby suit for permanent injunction preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed and the appeal filed thereafter has also been dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in possession over a piece of land, which was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha, for a considerable long time. The respondent was interfering in the possession of the appellant over the said land and, as such, a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant-plaintiff for restraining the respondent from interfering with peaceful possession over the land in question. Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the land in question was allowed to be used by the petitioner by Vinod Singh, the then Pradhan and the respondent had no right to interfere in the possession of the appellant. It is submitted that the suit for permanent injunction could not have been dismissed by the Court below, once the possession over land in question was established. It is also submitted that the first appellate Court without properly appreciating the contentions raised by appellant has dismissed the appeal.