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

1988 Supreme(Pat) 116

S.B.SINHA
Ram Singhashan Singh – Appellant
Versus
K. P. Sinha, Dy. Director Consolidation – Respondent


Judgment

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. As common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in these writ applications, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These writ applications involve a question as to whether the provisions of the Evidence Act apply in relation to a proceeding initiated under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Act)?

3. For the purpose of deciding the question involved in these writ applications it is not necessary to state the facts in details. However, for a better appreciation of the point involved, the facts of the case as stated in the writ petition in C.W.J.C. No. 3226 of 1987 may be taken into consideration. It is admitted that the petitioner and respondent no. 4 are descendants of their common ancestors. The genealogy of the family is as follows :


Gopal Pathak

|

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | | |

Ram Narain Jai Mangal Ram Brit P










































































































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