I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL Second Appeal No. 20 of 2009 Sadhu Ram S/o Shri Ratan Singh, R/o Village Jamalpur Kalan, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Roorkee, district Haridwar ……………Plaintiff / Appellant Versus (1) Satendra Kumar, S/o Shri Surat Singh, R/o Village Jamalpur Kalan, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar (2) Rahtu, S/o Shri Surat Singh R/o Village Jamalpur Kalan, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar (3) Ravindra S/o Shri Surat Singh, R/o Village Jamalpur Kalan, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar (4) Surat Singh, S/o Shri Umrao, R/o Village Jamalpur Kalan, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar (5) Ram Singh (Deceased) S/o Umrao Singh, R/o Village Jamalpur Kalan, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar (6) Ghasitu @ Ghasitu Ram (Deceased) S/o Chajju, R/o Village Chauradev, Pargana Haroda, Tehsil and District Saharanpur (7) Mamchand S/o Late Ghasitu (8) Ramesh S/o Ghasitu Both 7 & 8 R/o Village Chauradev, Pargana Haroda, Tehsil and District Saharanpur …………Defendants/Respondents 2 Sri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, present for the appellant. Sri M.S. Tyagi, Advocate, present for the respondent No. 1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2009, passed by the first appellate court (Additional District Judge / IV Fast Track Court, Haridwar), in Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2001, whereby said appeal has been dismissed, upholding the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2001, passed by the trial court (Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar), in Suit No. 86 of 1995. (3) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff /appellant instituted Suit No. 86 of 1995 for cancellation of sale deed and injunction with the pleading that the land in question belonged to ancestors of plaintiff and defendant No. 6 which was settled with the plaintiff under Section 9 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant No. 6 in the family partition did not get share in the property in dispute hence the sale deed executed by him in favour of the other defendants is illegal and liable to be cancelled. The defendants No. 1 to 5 contested the suit and pleaded that defendant No. 6 had the ownership over the property in dispute and rightly transferred the property to the contesting defendants for consideration through registered sale deed dated 10.06.1985. The trial court after framing issues, recording evidence and hearing the parties found that the defendant No. 6 was owner of the property in dispute and 3 transferred it to the defendants No. 1 to 5, as such, the sale deed is not liable to be cancelled. Aggrieved by said order, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate court. The said court also after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff. (4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court and one passed by the trial court, this Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded against the plaintiff by the courts below, which are based on the evidence on record. (5) The appeal is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 3776 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 15.07.2009 NS