HEMANT GUPTA
Shyam Lal – Appellant
Versus
Sham Lal – Respondent
1. The plaintiffs are in, second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, whereby the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and for correction of the revenue record, was dismissed for the reasons that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
2. A decree for pre-emption of the land measuring 15 Bighas-19 Biswas on payment of Rs. 8198.75 paise, in favour of one Rulia and Banwari, was passed by the learned trial Court on 16-2-1962. It is the case of the plaintiffs that due to mistake, mutation consequent to the decree, was sanctioned in favour of Banwari i.e. predecessor in-interest of the defendants, though Rulia Ram remained in possession of the half share. It is also pointed out that Banwari had purchased another land measuring 14 Bighas-1 Biswa. After consolidation, the suit property came to be allotted in lieu of the aforesaid land in which Rulia had 8/15th share. Taking Advantage of the wrong entries in the revenue record, Banwari suffered a collusive decree on 15-3-1984, in favour of his sons. The said decree also became the subject-matter of t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.