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

2001 Supreme(Raj) 1277

H.S.PUNIA, RASHMI PRIYADARSHINI
Murti Mandir – Appellant
Versus
Ram Charan – Respondent


Advocates:
Y.D. Sharma, Counsel for Appellants
N.D. Baijal, D.D. Sharma, Counsel for Respondent No. 1 to 3

PRIYADARSHINI, Member –This is an appeal filed u/Sec. 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (In short ``the Act) against the judgment and decree of Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar dated 26.6.93, whereby the first appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 to 3 was accepted and the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 8.10.90 were set-aside.

(2). The brief facts, necessary for decision of this appeal, are that a revenue suit for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction was filed by the Villagers on behalf of appellants No. 1 & 2 with the averment that the plaintiffs are khatedar tenants of agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 231, 232, 235 to 241, 469, 507, 508 and 509 measuring 41.13 bighas situated in the precinct of Village Rampura Patan and this land was given as muafi to both the temples and it was khudkast land of the plaintiffs-appellants. The defendants- respondents No.1 to 3 were pujaris of both the idols and they were managing the worship and cultivation of the suit land of the deities, and also the suit land was in possession of the Pujaris on behalf of the deities. It was further stated that the defendants took undue advantage of their position an




















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