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

1998 Supreme(All) 405

D.K.SETH
KAMLA SHANKER – Appellant
Versus
IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MIRZAPUR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Shiv Shankar Pandey

D. K. SETH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners had filed a suit for injunction against the defendant restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioners or from interfering with title and not to transfer the property to some one else.

( 2 ) SHRI S. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a suit under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamlndarl Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the u. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act) but there is no prayer for ejectment as is contemplated under Section 209 of the said Act on person occupying the land without title. On the other hand. It appears to be under Section 208 of the said Act wherein without suing for ejectment, the landholder may sue for injunction with or without compensation ; or for the repair of the waste or damage, caused to the holding.

( 3 ) LEARNED trial court and revisional court had found that the names of defendants have been recorded in the revenue record while that the petitioners do not find any place in the revenue record and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable before the civil court and is cognizable by revenue court. This was so found while deciding the preliminary obje






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