SECOND APPEAL IN HIGH COURT
IN THE HON?BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT Second Appeal No..................... of 19....................
(Under Section 100 C. P. C. )
...................................................................... Appellant
versus
................................................. Defendant/Respondent
.................................... Proforma Plaintiff/Respondent
To
The Hon?ble Chief Justice and his Companion Judges of the High Court of Judicature at....................
Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, .................... dated.................... in Civil Appeal No..................... of 19..................... between.................... and another, arising from judgment and decree in Original Suit No..................... of 19.................... Shri......................................... is most respectfully submitted on the following amongst other grounds of appeal:
Valuation of the Appeal.................... Rs..................... as per valuation in original suit.
Court fee paid........................ Rs.....................
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. Because the learned Appellate Court has not framed points for decision in appeal and has pressed only on one irrelevant and evasive point in a round about way bye-passing judicial approach and justice in the matter.
2. Because under Rule 26 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1952, if the building is abandoned, the site shall escheat to the State, the alleged Garhi having been abandoned the site had long before become the property of Gaon Sabha and no issue or point has been framed by the Courts below even at the face of the express pleading by the Appellant in this respect.
3. Because the learned Appellate Court has misunderstood the law as to ownership of the abadi sites in dispute. It is totally misconceived that since the respondent Zamindar was owner before abolition of Zamindari, hence he is owner of the abadi site in dispute. No possession is established on record either by filing extracts from Kutumb Register, or extracts from election record of Voters, or even by oral evidence that such and such servant is residing therein on behalf of the ex-Zamindar.
4. Because the bar to prove the neem trees within the.................... or in plot No..................... has been wrongly placed on the defendant/appellant. It is the plaintiff who is to stand on his own legs and it was he who was to get the land surveyed and not the defendant/appellant. The learned lower Appellate Court has miserably failed to import justice according to established principles of law.
5. Because the judgment of the learned Appellate Court is otherwise also against the provisions of law and facts on record.
6. Because the judgment of learned Appellate Court is evasive in nature and is no judgment in the eye of law.
7. Because the suit being bad for non-joinder of State and Gaon Sabha being necessary parties is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone and appeal be allowed.
RELIEF CLAIMED:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the appeal may be allowed and suit of the plaintiff/respondent be dismissed by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.
Dated.................... Counsel for the Appellant.
case law
Section 100
SUIT FOR REDEMPTION OF MORTGAGE?WHETHER IN RESPECT OF ALL PLOTS OR ONLY IN RESPECT OF PART THEREOF ? MIXED QUESTION OF FACT AND LAW? RECORDS OF APPEAL NOT SHOWING WHETHER OBJECTION TAKEN AT ANY EARLIER STAGE AND COURTS BELOW HAVE GONE INTO QUESTION ? CASE REMITTED TO HIGH COURT FOR DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
Before the High Court a stand was taken on behalf of the respondents that by the mortgage deed five plots were mortgaged but the appellants had sought redemption in respect of two plots; out of the plots one of plots was never subject matter of mortgage and as such the suit for redemption was not maintainable.
The appellants have produced a copy of the plaint along
