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

1982 Supreme(Pat) 70

B.P.JHA
Raja Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Mangal Mahto – Respondent


Judgment

1. I shall dispose of these two appeals, namely, Second Appeals Nos.289 and 290 of 1976, by a common judgement as these two appeals arise out of a common judgement passed by the Civil Court.

2. Title Suit No.87/76 of 1961-62 was filed for a declaration of title and recovery of possession and Title Suit No.17/24 of 1963-66 relates to partition. Both the suits were tried together and one judgement was delivered by the trial Court and by the appellate Court. In this Court, against the judgement of the appellate Court, these two appeals viz., Second Appeals Nos.289 and 290 of 1976, have been filed. One Mangal Mahto, respondent in both the appeals, has filed an application to the effect that a notification has been published under Sec.3 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is, therefore, stated in the supplementary affidavit that the suits and the appeals abated under Sec. 4(c) of the Act.

3. It is, therefore, relevant to quote Sec. 4(c) of the Act, which runs thus :-

"Every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in






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