R.L.GULATI, N.D.OJHA, SATISH CHANDRA
BALWANT – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION – Respondent
It appears that a zamindari share including Sir and khudkasht plots was usufructuarily mortgaged. The mortgagee continued in possession even after the date of voting. Subsequently the mortgagor, who had become a bhumidhar, filed a suit under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the ejectment of the mortgagee from the bhumidhari plots, which, prior to the date of vesting, were sir and khudkasht. The defence, inter alia, was that the suit was barred by time, because the defendants were in possession after the date of vesting, as trespassers, and the period of limitation commenced to run from the date of vesting. The plaintiffs case was that the retention of possession by the mortgagee was, after the date of vesting, permissive. The time will begin to run from the date of demand for possession, if any otherwise from the date of the institution of the suit. The suit was within time.
2. The suit was under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which reads :-
"209. Ejectment of persons occupying land without title :-
(1) A person taking or retaining possession of land otherwise than in accordance with the provi
REFERRED TO : Raj Narain v. Sant Prasad
Mustafa Khan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation
Shri Ram v. Dhan Bahadur Singh
J.K.Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
Jivabhai Purshottam v. Chhagan Karson
Sheo Amber Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd.
Commr. of Income-tax v. S.Teja Singh
Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan
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.