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

1976 Supreme(All) 99

K.S.VARMA
Mahadeo – Appellant
Versus
Umaraj – Respondent


Advocates:
B.L. Shukla, for Appellants; Vishal Singh, for Respondents.

JUDGMENT :- The circumstances in which these two second appeals came to be filed are as follows:-

One Jagat Pal Singh filed a suit against Mahadeo, Devi Dayal Tewari, Gaya Prasad Tewari, Vijai Shankar Tewari, Rameshwar Tewari, Shrimati Rajrani, Chandra Bhukhan Singh, Gajraj Singh and Sukhdeo Singh for a permanent injunction restraining them from obstructing the irrigation of plot No. 195/1 and a few other plots from a well situate on plot No. 193/1 in village Naraulha, Pargana, Tahsil and District Rae Bareli. A sum of Rs. 50/- was claimed on account of damages for the loss of crop. It is an admitted position that Jagat Pal Singh, Mahadeo and others defendants are co-Bhumidhars of plot 193/1. The plaintiff has come to Court with the allegations that his Chak after the Consolidation operations now includes plots 174, 193/3, 193/2, 194/1, 195/1, 196/1, 197/1 and 198/1 and the total area is 4 Bighas, 12 Biswas and 12 Dhurs. Before Consolidation operations, plot 195/1 was in the tenancy of Sheo Shankar Singh, the brother of Jagat Pal Singh and this plot had always been irrigated from the well in question for more than 25 years. It is further contended by the plaintiff Jagat Pal Singh th








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