SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(SC) 597

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.
Sri Brij Pal Das and others, Appellants
Versus
Ram Murat Singh and others, Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4675 of 1989 (Arising out of S.L.P. No. 15910 of 1988), D/-17-11-1989.

Advocates:
J.P.GOYAL, M.R.Bidsar, R.K.GUPTA, SATISH CHANDRA AGRAWAL, T.N.Singh

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 145 – Dispossessed- Consolidation- Appellants- U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Main question involved in this appeal is whether patta which was admittedly granted favour of Ram Bachan Singh father of contesting respondents was returned or not acted upon or terminated – Land was surrendered to landowner or patta subsisted on relevant that record on subject shows is that contesting respondents were dispossessed on proceeding is no evidence either of termination or return of patta or of voluntary surrender of land – Held, High Court while remanding the matter for investigation on this question has no doubt also remanded issue with regard to validity of Will executed by Sidheshwari of Munni Devi, the predecessor-in-title of present appellants and other allied issues – We are of view that said issues are not germane to decision of the title of contesting respondents to the land in dispute maintain order of remand we make it clear that Deputy Director of Consolidation will confine his decision only to the question whether the patta subsisted at the relevant time and the contesting respondents acquired any title to the land on the basis of patta – Appeal allowed.

Judgment

Leave granted.

2. The main question involved in this appeal is whether the patta which was admittedly granted in 1941 in favour of Ram Bachan Singh the father of the contesting respondents 1 and 2 was returned or not acted upon or terminated, and the land was surrendered to the landowner or the patta subsisted on the relevant date. All that the record on the subject shows is that the contesting respondents were dispossessed on October 31, 1952 in a proceeding under S. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That is no evidence either of the termination or return of the patta or of the voluntary surrender of the land.

3. The High Court while remanding the matter for investigation on this question has no doubt also remanded the issue with regard to the validity of the Will executed by Sidheshwari in favour of Munni Devi, the predecessor-in-title of the present appellants, and other allied issues. We are of the view that the said issues are not germane to the decision of the title of the contesting respondents to the land in dispute. While, therefore, we maintain the order of remand, we make it clear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation will confine his decision only to the question whether the patta subsisted at the relevant time and the contesting respondents acquired any title to the land on the basis of the patta under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The parties will bear their own costs.

Appeal allowed.

For Citation : AIR 1990 SC 370

Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top