Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4453 Court No. - 4 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 17 of 2025 Appellant :- Istikhar Khan Alias Munna And 4 Others Respondent :- Shazia Khatoon And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Srivastava Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below on the ground that the sale deed was executed during pendency of the appeal and on coming to know about the same, the suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed but the learned courts below without considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record and the fact that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent no.1 who had executed the sale deed could not prove his title,dismissed the suit. 3. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the material placed on record of this appeal and the impugned judgment and decrees. 4. The suit for permanent injunction bearing Regular Suit No.71 of 1998(Smt.Sarwar Jahan versus Smt.Mehrunnisa and others) was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants before the Civil Judge, Junior Division,North,Lucknow, which was dismissed on merit on 13.12.2004. Therefore the civil appeal No.153 of 2004 was filed before the District Judge, Lucknow, which was also dismissed by means of the order dated 03.07.2011. Being aggrieved, Second Appeal No.255 of 2011 was filed before this Court, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. During pendency of the civil appeal before the lower appellate court, the registered sale deed dated 23.01.2008 was executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent no.1 in favour of the respondent no.2. The suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed in the year 2015 after dismissal of the second appeal for want of prosecution. The learned trial court as well as learned lower court after considering the pleadings,evidence and material on record found that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was claiming rights on the land in dispute on the basis of oral hibanama. However, the same could not be proved by the appellant. The earlier suit for permanent injunction was also dismissed on merit, the appeal of which was also dismissed and the second appeal is dismissed for non prosecution, which has still not been restored. Thus, the court found that the judgment and decree passed in Regular Suit No.71 of 1998 is still intact and in view of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act 1882,the transfer made during pendency of the proceedings would be subject to outcome of the proceedings and would be binding on the transferee and the earlier proceedings instituted by the appellant and therefore the appellant does not get any benefit of the same. 5. On perusal of the judgement and decrees passed by the Courts below this Court finds that the same have been passed in accordance with law after considering pleadings, evidence and material on record by reasoned and speaking orders. The appellant has filed photocopies of certain documents, which could not have been considered. 6. In view of above, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or error in the impugned judgment and decrees,which may call for any interference by this Court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 7. The appeal is,accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Akanksha/- Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench