Back
S.K.VERMA
Ishtiyaq Husain Abbas Husain – Appellant
Versus
Zafrul Islam Afzal Husain – Respondent
2. The plaintiff's case was that he was the owner in possession of the house in suit of which defendant no. 2 was a tenant. One Mukhtar Ahmad Pradhan of the Gaon Samaj instituted proceedings under Rule 115D of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, claiming that the Gaon Samaj was the owner of the house in dispute. It was alleged, further, that neither defendant no. 2 nor defendant no. 4 was the owner of the house and that the sale-deed alleged to have been executed by Chhidda in favour of defendant no. 4 conferred no title upon him. In the proceedings under rule 115-D of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the plaintiff was directed to file a regular suit and hence he filed the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. The State Government was made a pro forma defendant and it did not put in appearance. The Gaon Samaj filed a written statement but thereafter took no
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. There are no keywords or phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," or "criticized" present in the provided excerpts that would suggest a negative judicial treatment. Therefore, based on the information available, no cases are identified as bad law.
[Followed]
None explicitly indicated. The references to cases such as AIR 1969 All 161 and others are cited as precedents or reliance points, but there is no explicit statement showing they have been followed in subsequent rulings within the provided text.
[Distinguished or Referenced]
Several cases (e.g., Pas Koery 1964 ALJ 969, Ishtiyaq Husain Abbas Husain v. ... AIR 1969 All 161) are cited as references or reliance points, suggesting they have been considered important in the legal reasoning, but there is no explicit indication that they have been distinguished or overruled.
[Other treatment patterns]
The repeated references to "In the similar manner" and "gave following verdict" suggest these cases are being cited as supportive or illustrative, but again, there is no explicit treatment pattern such as criticism or overruling.
The case of Zafrul Islam Afzal Husain and others (AIR 1969 All 161) appears multiple times and is referenced as a key precedent. However, there is no explicit information about its subsequent judicial treatment, whether it has been overruled or confirmed. The treatment remains ambiguous based solely on the provided excerpts.
The case of Ishtiyaq Husain Abbas Husain v. ... is repeatedly cited, but without any indication of how later courts have treated it.
In summary, the list provided does not contain explicit indicators of negative treatment or overruling. The treatment of these cases remains unclear due to the lack of specific language indicating their judicial fate beyond their initial citation.
**Source :** Bihar State Electricity Board,Patna VS K. N. H. Medical College And Hospital, Bhagalpur - Patna Raj Kumari VS Board of Revenue - Allahabad Shiv Rani VS District Judge, Mainpuri - Allahabad SHIV RANI VS DISTRICT JUDGE, MAINPURI - Allahabad Hari Sinha VS Gurupad Sambhav Ram - Chhattisgarh
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
