KAUSHALYA DEVI vs AMAR SINGH AND OTHERS

SARITA RANI 2026.07.15 17:16 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.1922 of 2025 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 095674 RSA No.2004 of 2025 (O&M) RSA No.1975 of 2026 (O&M) illegal, null and void, coupled with consequenal relief of permanent injuncon. The learned Trial Court partly decreed the suit. Aggrieved therefrom, separate appeals preferred by different defendants came to be allowed by the learned First Appellate Court, resulng in dismissal of the suit. The plainff has now filed the present Regular Second Appeals, against reversal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard and the judgments of both the Courts below have been perused. 4. The principal reason, which weighed with the learned First Appellate Court while reversing the decree of the Trial Court is that the Trial Court granted a relief, which had neither been claimed by the plainff nor was founded upon the pleadings or the issues framed between the pares. The said finding of trial court, in the considered opinion of this Court, is legally unacceptable. 5. A perusal of the plaint leaves no manner of doubt that the plainff confined the challenge to the sale deeds dated 17.05.2005 and 24.07.2008 primarily on