IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[S.C.R., ORDER VI RULE 4(1) (a)]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) NO. OF 2025
[Arising out of the impugned final order and judgment dated 16.12.2024, passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Second Appeal in Appeal No.
2126 of 2018]

(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

IN THE MATTER OF:
Kamal Singh & Ors ...PETITIONER

Versus

Jagram & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS

PAPER BOOK
With
CMP. NO_______OF 2025

Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the

Impugned Order

CRLMP. NO_______OF 2025

Application for exemption from filling Official Translation

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: SAMEER KUMAR

INDEX
S.No PARTICULAR Part-I Part-II Remarks
1. Court Fee
2. O/R on Limitation
3. Listing Performa
4. Cover Page of Paper Book
5. Index of Record of Proceedings
6. Limitation report prepared by the Registry
7. Defect List
8. Note Sheet
9. Synopsis and List of dates
10. Impugned Order:
Arising out of the Impugned Judgment and Final Order dated
10.03.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in First Appeal From Order No. 2008 of 2005(Under
Section 163 of the Motor Vehicle Act)
11. Special Leave Petition with affidavit
12. Annexure---
13.
14. Filing Memo
15. Vakalatnama

PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING

SECTION-
The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):
• Central Act: (Title) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
• Section: 163
• Central Rule: (Title) N/A
• Rule No(s): N/A
• State Act (title) N/A
• Section: N/A
• State Rule: (Title) N/A
• Rule No(s): N/A
• Impugned Interim order: (Date) N/A
• Impugned Final Order/Decree: (Date) 10.03.2022
• High Court: (Name): HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD Name of Judges: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. KAUSHAL
JAYENDRA THAKER AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI TYAGI
• Tribunal/Authority: NA

1. Nature of matter: Civil Criminal

2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No.1: Dr. Suresh Prasad Tripathy
(b) e-mail ID: N/A
(c) Mobile phone number: N/A
3. (a) Respondent No.1: Jai Ram Shukla
(b) e-mail ID: N/A
(c) Mobile phone number: N/A
4. (a) Main Category Classification: 14 Criminal Matter
(b) Sub classification: __
5. Not to be listed: N/A
6. Similar/Pending matter:
a. No Similar matter: NO SIMILAR MATTER
b. No pending matter: NO PENDING MATTER
7. Criminal Matters: NO
(a)Whether accused/convict has surrendered: Yes No
(b) FIR No.:
(c) Police Station:
(d) Sentence Awarded: N/A
(e) Sentence Undergone: N/A
8. Land Acquisition Matters:
(a) Date of Section 4 notification: N/A
(b) Date of Section 6 notification: N/A
(c) Date of Section 17 notification: N/A
9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: N/A

10. Special Category (first Petitioner/appellant only):N/A

Senior Citizen ≥ 65 years SC/ST Woman/child
Disabled Legal Aid case In custody

11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim Matters: UP 70/58555

(SAMEER KUMAR)
AOR FOR Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)
Registration No. 2519
Chamber No. 103 CK Daphtary Block,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi
Mob: 9654058652
Email: sameerkumaradvocate@gmail.com

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 [S.C.R., ORDER VI RULE 4(1) (a)]
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) NO. OF 2025
[Arising out of the impugned final order dated 10.03.2022, passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal From Order No.
2008 of 2005]
(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Kamal Singh & Ors ...PETITIONER

Versus

Jagram & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is / are within time.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of ____ days in filing the
same against the Order dated ____________ and the Petition for
condonation of ___days delay has been filed.
3. There is delay of ______ days in re-filing the Petition and the Petition for
condonation of ______days delay in re-filing has been filed.

NEW DELHI
DATED: _______ (BRANCH OFFICER)
 SYNOPSIS

The instant Petition is a limited challenge to the impugned final order and

judgement dated 16.12.2024, wherein the Hon’ble High Court while upholding

the rights of the sisters (Plaintiffs in Suit No. 45/2013) in the suit property under

Section 8(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has not recognized the

identical right of Late Dhankunwar, the widow of the deceased owner of the suit

property. It is submitted that once the Ld. Trial Court and the 1 st Appellate

Court came to the conclusion that the will produced by the Petitioners herein

have not been proved in accordance with law and the all the legal heirs of the

deceased “Bhagona” are entitled to equal shares of the property, being their

class-I heir, the sale deed executed by “Dhankunwar”/ mother of the Petitioners

and Respondent No.__to__&___, dated ___________.

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

2011-13 In Civil Suit No. 45A/2013, Ms. Parvati and Ms. Bhankunwar, the

Plaintiffs filed civil suit for declaration of title, and permanent

injunction pleading inter alia that Bhagona was the owner and in

possession of 2/3 share in the disputed land whereas the remaining

1/3 share was of Ramchanda. The plaintiffs are the daughters of

Bhagona, whereas Narayanju, Mannulal, Kamal Singh (Plaintiffs

in Civil No. 45A/2013), Jagram and Ms. Dhankunwar Wd/o

Bhagona are the other class I heirs of Bhagona and thus, all of

them have 1/7th share each. After the death of Bhagona, the

defendants no. 1 to 5 got their names mutated in the revenue

records without the information and consent of the plaintiffs.

However, it was pleaded that plaintiffs are in joint cultivating

possession of the land in dispute. Furthermore, the defendants no.1

to 4 also got a sale deed executed from defendant no. 5 which is

null and void to the extent of share of plaintiffs. Now, the

defendants have started alienating the land and defendants no. 1 to

4 are claiming that plaintiffs have no right or title in the land in

dispute. The defendant no. 3 has alienated one plot forming part of

142/5, admeasuring 3000 sq. ft. by sale deed dated 16-6- 2011 and

defendant no. 3 has alienated another plot forming part of 123/1

admeasuring 50 sq. ft. to defendants no. 6 to 9 by registered sale

deed dated 16-6-2011 and another plot of 50 sq. ft. of land forming

part of 123/1 admeasuring 60 sq. ft. has been alienated to

defendants no. 10 to 11. All the sale deeds have been executed

without getting the partition done. It was also claimed that the fact

of execution of Will by Bhagona in favour of defendants no. 1 to 5

is also incorrect. The will dated 10-10-1978 is a forged document.

The mutation was not done on the basis of Will, in fact the

defendants no. 1 to 5 had got their names mutated in connivance

with Settlement officers.

The defendants no. 1,2,4 and 5 filed their written statement and

claimed that Bhagona had executed a Will during his life time. The

plaintiffs do not have 1/7th share in the property. Bhagona had

executed the Will after understanding the same and he was hale

and hearty. The defendant no. 5 had executed the sale deed after

receiving full consideration amount. The answering defendants are

not alienating any plot. The plaintiffs were never in possession of

land and rights and title of the plaintiffs were never denied. The

defendants no. 3 and 6 to 11 filed their written statement and also

denied the plaint averments.

Similarly, in Civil Suit No. 44A of 2013, it was the case of the

Petitioners herein that Bhagona was the owner of the property in

dispute. Bhagona had executed a will and the same was in the

knowledge of the Plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 45A(Ms. Parvati and

Ms. Bhakunwar). The Petitioners herein had already given certain

lands to their sisters in their marriage as their shares, since a four

lane road had been being constructed, the sisters had become

dishonest. It was also pleaded that the Defendant No.1 in the suit,
 who is also brother of the Plaintiffs with malafide intentions had

sold certain piece of land by sale deed dated 16.06.2011 to other

persons who had also been impleaded as party to the suit.

21.03.2017 The Ld. Trial Court after recording evidence of parties, decreed the

Civil Suit No. 45A/2012 and it was declared that Ms. Parvati, Ms.

Bhankunwar, Narayan, Manu, Jagaram, Kamal Singh and

Dhankunwar have 1/7th share in survey no. 69/1,123/1,124,142/1,

142/5. Permanent injunction was also issued against the defendants

to the effect that without getting the aforesaid land partitioned, no

alienation shall take place. It was also decreed that sale deed dated

16-6-2011 executed in favour of Narayan Singh, Awadhlal, Manoj

Kumar, Dileep Kumar and Rameshwar is null and void to the

extent of share of plaintiffs Ms. Parvati and Ms. Bhankumar.

Similarly, Civil Suit No. 44A/203 was decided by holding that

Appellants, Jagram, Ms. Parvati and Ms. Bhankunwar have 1/7th

share in the disputed property.

23.10.2017 It is submitted that the Petitioners herein preferred 1 st Appeal

No.124/2017& 125/2017 against the judgment and decree dated

31.07.2018.

31.07.2018 The Ld. 1st Appellate Court dismissed the said Appeals on similar

grounds and upheld the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2017.

 The Ld. 1st Appellate Court also held that sale of 1/5 th share by

“Dhankunwar”, the mother of the Petitioners herein, was illegal

and hence is set aside. It is submitted that both the Ld. Trial Court

as well as the 1st Appellate Court failed to appreciate the law that

share in the property received by a woman under section 8 of

Hindu Succession Act, becomes her self-acquired property and

hence if not 1/5th, then “Dhankunwar” had 1/7th share in the

property and hence if the sale deed executed by her becomes void

only to that extent only and the Petitioners along with Respondent

No.__Jagram had ____share in the property.

10.09.2018 The Petitioners filed Second Appeal No. 2126/2018 & Second

Appeal No. 2070/2018 against the judgement and decree dated

31.07.2018, passed by the Ld. 1st Appellate Court. A true copy of

the Second Appeal No. 2126/2018, dated 10.09.2018, is marked

and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-P/(Page No.___to___).

16.12.2024 The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the said appeals on the ground

that the Plaintiffs/Petitioners herein have failed to prove in

accordance with law and further that the concurrent findings

arrived by the two courts below could not have been interfered

with as per the settled law.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[S.C.R., ORDER VI RULE 4(1) (a)]
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) NO. OF 2025

[Arising out of the impugned final order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal From Order No.
2008 of 2005(Under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicle Act)]

(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Dr. Suresh Prasad Tripathy ...PETITIONER
Versus

Jai Ram Shukla & Ors ...RESPONDENTS

BETWEEN
Before the trial Court Before the Hon’ble High Court Before this Hon’ble
Court
1. Suresh Prasad Tripathy,S/O
Raja bhai Tripathy R/O Purani
Bazaar Karwi, Dist- Chitrakoot

Claimant Appellant Petitioner

Versus
1. Jairam Shukhla, S/O Ram Sajeevan R/O Kaitpur sarpaha PS Gyanpur

Dist- santarvidas nagar Bhadoi, UP Respondent No. 1 Respondent No.

1 Respondent No. 1

2. Mohammad Bdhmal Ali, S/o Shri Hazi Mahmoob Ali, R/o

95 Chak, Allahabad, UP Respondent No. 2 Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 2
3. New Insurance India Co. Ltd. , Legal Cell, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Civil
Lines Allahabad, UP Respondent No. 3 Respondent No. 3
Respondent No. 3

4. Krishna Kumar, S/o Shari Rameshwar Prasad, R/o Dekhiw Phatak Block,
Mirzapur, District Mirzapur, UP Respondent No. 4
Respondent No. 4

Respondent No. 4

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
And His Companion Judges of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The Humble Petition on behalf of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner is filing the instant Special Leave Petition under Art

136 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved from the impugned final

order dated 10.03.2022, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad in First Appeal From Order No. 2008 of 2005, wherein the

Hon’ble High Court upheld the order passed by the Ld. MACT,

Chitrakoot, whereby the claims for compensation under different heads

filed the Petitioner were rejected on the ground that the “permanent

disability certificate” produced by the Petitioner seems doubtful and the

Petitioner also failed to prove the medical bills in as much he produced

mere photocopies of the bills and no admission or discharge paper was

filed on the record to prove his treatment.

2. QUESTION OF LAW

a) Whether the Hon’ble High Court was correct in upholding the

decision of the Ld. MACT?

b) Whether the Hon’ble High Court correct in negating the Disability

Certificate primarily on the ground that original of the X-Ray report

and medical bills was not available on the record.

c) Whether the both the Ld. MACT & the Hon’ble High Court

committed a factual error by not giving directions for constitution of

 Medical Board to adjudicate the issue of “Permanent Disability

Certificate”?

d) Whether the Hon’ble High Court as well as the Ld. MACT committed

a manifest error by rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner regarding

reimbursement of Rs. 1,60,000/- towards medical bills on the ground

of not producing original bills on record?

e) Whether the Hon’ble High Court as well as the Ld. MACT failed to

appreciate that once PW1 has appeared in the witness box and has

proved the disability certificate, absence of X-ray report on the file

does not render the document itself inadmissible?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 2(2)

That the Petitioners states that no other petition seeking leave to appeal

has been filed by her against the impugned judgment and final order

10.03.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

in First Appeal From Order No. 2008 of 2005.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4

Annexure-P/__ to P/__ along with the Special Leave are true copies of

pleadings/documents which formed part of the record of the case in the

Hon’ble High Court against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for

in this petition.
5. GROUNDS
In the present petition, leave to appeal is sought on the following amongst

other grounds, which are set out hereinafter without prejudice to one

another:

a) Because the judgment dated 10.03.2022 passed by Hon’ble High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal From Order No.

2008 of 2005is bad in the eye of law, not sustainable and is liable

to be set-aside.

b) Because the Hon’ble High Court committed an error of law as

well as in facts while negating the Disability Certificate primarily

on the ground that original of the X-Ray report and medical bills

was not available on the record.

c) Because the both the Ld. MACT & the Hon’ble High Court

committed a factual error by not giving directions for constitution

of Medical Board to adjudicate the issue of “Permanent Disability

Certificate.

d) Because the Hon’ble High Court as well as the Ld. MACT

committed a manifest error by rejecting the prayer of the

Petitioner regarding reimbursement of Rs. 1,60,000/- towards

medical bills on the ground of not producing original bills on

record.
e) Because the Hon’ble High Court as well as the Ld. MACT failed

to appreciate that once PW1 has appeared in the witness box and

has proved the disability certificate, absence of X-ray report on the

file does not render the document itself inadmissible.

f) Because the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that the

Petitioner sustained injuries in the accident, is an admitted fact.

Once the doctor who has examined the Petitioner and signed over

the disability certificate gives evidence in support of the disability

certificate, nothing more is required to prove the disability.

g) It is pertinent to mention herein that both the Hon’ble High Court

as well as the Ld. MACT have rejected the claim of the Petitioner

on the ground that the very permanent disability is doubtful as no

X-ray report was produced on record which is the basis of the

disability certificate.

h) Because the Hon’ble High Court did not appreciate the fact that

though the X-ray report was not available on record yet, untainted

and unblemished injury reports were available on the record

proves that immediately after the accident, the right leg of the

Petitioner was frozen.

i) Because the Hon’ble High Court should have appreciated the fact

that the PW83(C ) , Dr. AK Mohan, who is an Orthopaedic

 Specialist has clearly stated in his deposition that the permanent

disability was due to freezing of the knee and the pelvis only.

j) Because so far as photocopies of medical bills and documentary

evidence regards admission and discharge of the Petitioner in Priti

Hospital , Allahabad is concerned, it is stated that as the Petitioner

was not subjected to cross-examination in this regard as such the

Petitioner had no opportunity to explain the circumstances under

which he was not able to produce the documents.

k) Because in any case if the Ld. MACT had any doubts regarding

the permanent disability of the Petitioner, the same could have

well been examined by constituting a medical board in this regard.

But both the Ld. MACT as well as the Hon’ble High Court

proceeded on mere assumptions and held that the very permanent

disability certificate was doubtful.

l) Because the Ld. MACT being a fact-finding court had the

opportunity to constitute a medical board regarding the claim of

permanent disability, however the Ld. MACT completely lost the

opportunity and proceeded on the basis of mere assumption that

the Petitioner being a doctor colluded with other doctors to get

false and fabricated documents prepared.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF
Petitioner has set out all the relevant facts in detail in the accompanying

list of dates and the Petitioner shall crave leave to refer to and rely upon

the same as if incorporated herein verbatim for the sake of brevity.

7. MAIN PRAYER
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Grant special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and final

order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad in First Appeal From Order No. 2008 of 2005.

b) Pass such further or other order or orders as may be deemed fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of

justice;

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a) ad-interim ex-parte grant of stay to the Petitioner during pendency of the

present Petition arising out of final order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal From

Order No. 2008 of 2005(Under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicle Act)
b) Pass such further or other order or orders as may be deemed fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of

justice;

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY

BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY.

(SAMEER KUMAR)
AOR FOR Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)
Registration No. 2519
Chamber No. 103 CK Daphtary Block,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi
Mob: 9654058652

Email:sameerkumaradvocate@gmail.com