Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 45539 (ALL)

SUBHAWATI AND ANOTHER v. RAJENDRA YADAV

A227/4075/2016 · 2025-09-22

Manish Kumar Nigam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4075 of 2016 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. This petition has been filed challenging an order dated 23.04.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mau by which the trial court has summoned the gift deed executed by defendant-Vishwanath in favour of Subhawati Devi and Champa Devi for the purposes of comparing the thumb impression of Vishwanath over the deed with the agreement to sell allegedly executed by Vishwanath in favour of plaintiff-respondent. The petitioners filed a revision against the said order, the same has also been rejected vide order dated 02.04.2016. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is firstly, that the defendant-Vishwanath never executed the gift deed as alleged by the plaintiff and secondly, that the said agreement to sell was unregistered and therefore, the same was not admissible in evidence. He further states that the court below has erred in law in directing for summoning the gift deed executed by the deceased defendant-Vishwanath to compare the thumb impression of Vishwanath on the gift deed with the alleged thumb impression on the agreement to sell. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is correct that the said deed may not be admissible in evidence for specific performance of an agreement as the requirement of law is that an agreement to sell should be registered but since the plaintiff has also claimed for refund of money on the basis of said deed, for the collateral purposes, the deed is admissible in evidence to the effect that the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandrakant Tripathi, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Virendra Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : , Pavan Kumar Srivastava Subhawati And Another .....Petitioner(s) Rajendra Yadav .....Respondent(s) agreement was entered into between the party, though may not be enforceable for want of the registration. 4. In my view, no illegality has been committed by the courts below. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. September 23, 2025 Nitika Sri. A227 No. 4075 of 2016 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad