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

1989 Supreme(SC) 620

M.M.PUNCHHI, S.RANGANATHAN
Udai – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Varanasi – Respondent


Advocates:
J.P.GOYAL, PRAMOD SVARUP, S.K.JAIN

JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.:- The original appellant Udai and one Pargash (the pre decessor-in-interest. of the fifth respondent herein) were recorded as Sirdars over Khata Nos. 203 and 217 in village Murmaicha, Pargana Bhidohi, Talisil Gyanpur, District Varanasi. The fourth respondent Smt.Raghunathi filed an objection, under S. 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, challenging the correctness of the entries made in favour of Udai and Pargash. She claimed that she had been in possession of the said plots and that Udai and Pargash had no connection therewith. The case of Udai and Pargash, on the other hand, was that the plots in question have been let out to them by the objector, that they had been recorded as sub tenants in the yer 1357 Fasli and, as such, they had acquired Sirdari rights. The Consolidation Officer upheld the claim of Smt. Raghunathi in respect of khata No. 203 but rejected it in respect of khata No. 217.

2. The Settlement Officer, by his order dated 18-1-68, allowed the appeal of Udai but dismissed the appeal of Smt. Raghunathi in respect of khata No. 217 with the result that both Udai and Shri Ram (son of Pargash) were held Sirdars of the respective khatas :









































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top