2025:UHC:1877 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 13 of 2023 18 March, 2025 Manmohan Singh --Appellant/Defendant Versus Jaggo Devi and Others --Respondents/Plaintiffs Presence:- Mr. Yogesh Pandey and Mrs. Sangeeta Adhikari Patni, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral) This second appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 17.02.2020 in OS No.119 of 2013, “Jaggo Devi & Others” passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal whereby counter claim of the appellant/defendant for restraining plaintiff /respondent was disallowed; that, the First Appeal No.16 of 2021 of the appellant/defendant was also dismissed on 04.01.2023 by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. 2. Aggrieved by these two judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the Second Appeal is filed. 1 2025:UHC:1877 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that the suit property was purchased by the appellant/defendant in 1967 which was later on mutated in his name, in view of the notification of the Government which had permitted the mutation in the name of the person who had purchased some agricultural land on unregistered document and was in possession; that, later on, this mutation was set aside on the application of the respondents/plaintiffs, against which, the appeal is pending before the Revenue Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the counter claim of the appellant/defendant was dismissed because he had placed the evidence before the Trial Court that in the year 1967, the appellant/defendant had not even born and without amending the pleadings he simply filed an affidavit before the Trial Court stating therein that Manmohan S/o Tajwar Singh was son of his father from first wife and after his death he was born from second wife of his father and the same name i.e. Manmohan Singh was given to him. However, the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court did notice concoction and dismissed the counter claim and there is no ground in the Second Appeal. 2 2025:UHC:1877 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would fairly admit that in the counter claim it is specifically stated that the appellant/defendant was not born in 1967 and without amending the pleadings he admitted this fact in his affidavit. 6. In view of the above, there is no merit in this Second Appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 18.03.2025 SS 3