The bench called the lower court’s judgment in which a tenant of a property was given the decree of possession and the ownership “a case of deliberate judicial misconduct” and a “daylight judicial murder”.The Allahabad High Court has recommended action against a Ghaziabad civil court judge over an order in a property case, and raised questions about the integrity of the judge. The bench called the lower court’s judgment in which a tenant of a property was given the decree of possession and the ownership “a case of deliberate judicial misconduct” and a “daylight judicial murder”.Setting aside the May 13, 2025, judgment and decree issued by the Ghaziabad civil court, the Bench of Justice Sandeep Jain, in its order on Tuesday, stated: “The office is directed to place this file before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for taking appropriate action on the administrative side against the trial court judge… for passing such blatant, dishonest and illegal order.”In a section titled, “Conduct of the trial Judge”, the Bench observed, “The reason assigned by the trial court for ignoring the death certificate of (the woman who gave the property to the tenant) is shocking, perverse, and tainted with extraneous considerations. The trial court purposely, in order to cause illegal gain to the plaintiff, has ignored it, which needs to be deprecated. The conduct of the trial Judge is not above board, who has either due to extraneous reasons or due to lack of competence, has passed the impugned decree, which cannot be legally justified in any manner whatsoever.”“It is a case of deliberate judicial misconduct, which renders the integrity of the Judge doubtful. This is a case which shocks the conscience of this Court, that how could a Judge act in this manner, in order to cause wrongful gain to the plaintiff… the blatant manner in which law has been flouted and justice has been denied. It is a case of daylight judicial murder,” the Bench observed.The Civil Judge had given the order in an application filed by one Indra Mohan Sachdev requesting the court to direct the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation to enter his name as the owner of a property. Sachdev had approached the court stating the corporation was not entering his name, while earlier a local court of an Additional Civil Judge had given the decree in his favour in May, 2022.The corporation, however, stated that the applicant (Indra Mohan Sachdev) has filed the suit on wrong facts by concealing the true facts. The corporation also said the property was disputed and was registered as Muraga Khana in its property records.But the civil judge on the basis of the decree dated May 31, 2022, concluded that the corporation was bound to obey the 2022 decree of Sachdev being the owner in possession of the disputed property, and that decree has not been set aside by any competent court.Story continues below this adThe trial court also concluded in its order that since the corporation was realising the tax of the disputed property and Sachdev was regularly paying the tax being its owner. Therefore, the corporation cannot refute the ownership of Sachdev in the disputed property. The trial court rejected all the documentary evidence submitted by the corporation on the ground that it was a photocopy, and in the absence of corroborative evidence, it was inadmissible in evidence.The corporation challenged the trial court order in the High Court.The High Court in its order on Tuesday said that just on the basis of payment of house tax of the disputed property, neither any one acquire its ownership nor can proclaim to be its owner, and merely on the basis that the person is recorded as owner in the property register of Municipal Corporation, does not become the owner of the disputed property.“It is well settled that once having entered the disputed property as a tenant, the tenant is not entitled to claim its ownership on the basis of adverse possession, because the tenant is bound to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property to the landlord/owner,” the High Court said.Story continues below this ad“It is apparent that the trial court has in total disregard of the legal provisions and evidence on record, has decreed the plaintiff’s suit by impugned judgment, merely on the basis of an earlier decree, which was a nullity. But, still the trial court has relied on this void decree to grant relief to the plaintiff, which is inexplicable and legally unsustainable,” the High Court added.Bhupendra Pandey is the Resident Editor of the Lucknow edition of The Indian Express. With decades of experience in the heart of Uttar Pradesh’s journalistic landscape, he oversees the bureau’s coverage of India’s most politically significant state. His expertise lies in navigating the complex intersections of state governance, legislative policy, and grassroots social movements. From tracking high-stakes assembly elections to analyzing administrative shifts in the Hindi heartland, Bhupendra’s reportage provides a definitive lens on the region's evolution. Authoritativeness He leads a team of seasoned reporters and investigators, ensuring that The Indian Express’ signature "Journalism of Courage" is reflected in every regional story. His leadership is central to the Lucknow bureau’s reputation for breaking stories that hold the powerful to account, making him a trusted figure for policy analysts, political scholars, and the general public seeking to understand the nuances of UP’s complex landscape. Trustworthiness & Accountability Under his stewardship, the Lucknow edition adheres to the strictest standards of factual verification and non-partisan reporting. He serves as a bridge between the local populace and the national discourse, ensuring that regional issues are elevated with accuracy and context. By prioritizing primary-source reporting and on-the-ground verification, he upholds the trust that readers have placed in the Express brand for nearly a century. ... Read More © The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:allahabad high court