IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 34 of 2009 1. Govind Lal. 2. Girdhari Lal. 3. Manohar Lal. 4. Jaswant Lal All sons of Late Sri Heera Lal Residents of Vishughat, Jwalapur Haridwar. ……Defendants/Appellants. Versus 1. Shiv Kumar Gaur S/o Late Sri Durga Prasad R/o Vishnughat, Jwalapur Haridwar. ……….Plaintiff/respondent. 2. Dr. Som Prakash Gupta S/o Sri Ameer Singh Resident of Mehtan, Jwalapur Haridwar. .……….Defendant/Respondent. Shri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the appellant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is delay condonation application No. 5389 of 2009, for condonation of delay, in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2009, passed by Additional District Judge/IVth Fast Track Court, Haridwar, in Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2005. 2. Heard. 3. There is delay of 64 days in filing the appeal, which has sufficiently been explained in the affidavit of Girdhari Lal Chopra 2 (appellant No. 2). Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 4. Also, heard on admission and perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.01.2009, passed by first appellate court (Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-IV, Haridwar), whereby said court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2004, passed by the trial court (Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Haridwar), in suit No. 158 of 1999. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 18.07.1991, executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4. It is pleaded by the plaintiff before the trial court that while transferring his interest in the house in question, the defendant No. 5, has transferred the portion of the property, owned by the plaintiff. Both the parties adduced evidence before the trial court. The trial court after hearing the parties, found that the plaintiff has successfully proved his title over the part of the property sold to the defendants No. 1 to 4 by defendant No. 5. Accordingly, the suit was partly decreed by the trial court and the sale deed dated 18.07.1991, executed by defendant No. 5, in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4, was declared void in respect of the portion, which was not owned by him (defendant No. 5). The defendants No. 1 to 4, preferred an appeal 3 against the judgment and decree, passed by the trial court, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2005. The first appellate court after hearing the parties concurred with the view taken by the trial court. Both the courts below have discussed the evidence at length. This Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The concurrent finding of fact, recorded by the courts below, which is based on evidence on record, cannot be interfered with by this Court. 6. Therefore, the Second Appeal is dismissed summarily with the observation that the sale deed dated 18.07.1991, as held by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court, shall remain void only to the extent of portion of the property, which was not owned by defendant No. 5. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:29.10.2009 Sweta 4 5 6 7 8 9