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

2010 Supreme(SC) 1339

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
JEET NARAIN – Appellant
Versus
GOVIND PRASAD – Respondent


JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Leave granted. Heard the parties.

2. The appellants claim to be the owners in possession and enjoyment of the disputed agricultural land (Khata 106). According to them their father Mata Jatan, son of Jarbandhan acquired the said property and in the basic year of Akar Patra 5, the said land was recorded in their names.

3. The appellants allege that in the year 2005, the third respondent and others filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the appellants in O.S. No. 482/2005 and in the plaint there was a reference to an order dated 9.7.1980 of the Assistant Consolidation Officer as the basis of their claim to title as co-sharers to the disputed property. The appellants claim that thereafter they made enquiries and and found that one Anant Ram and Ram Sundar had filed objections before the Assistant Consolidation Officer claiming that their names should be entered as co-sharers of the land; that on the basis of an alleged farzi compromise, without hearing the appellants, the Assistant Consolidation Officer had passed an ex parte non-speaking order dated 9.7.1980 illegally introducing the names of Ram Sundar (son of Repu) and Anant Ram and Basant Lal (sons of










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