Back
RAJNISH KUMAR
Fagoo Ram – Appellant
Versus
Ram Laut (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
2. This second appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court i.e.Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur in Civil Appeal No.182 of 2001 (Fagoo Ram And Others vs. Ram Laut and Others) and the judgement and decree dated 22.10.2011 passed by Trial Court i.e. Civil Judge (J.D.), Kadipur, Sultanpur in Original Suit No.337 of 1989 (Fagoo Ram and Others Vs. Ram Laut and Others).
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the father of the appellants had filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration of right on some part of Gata No.105 as an appurtenant land to his house, which is situated on Gata No.106, on the ground that the appellants are in possession of the land in dispute since prior to the promulgation of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act-1950 (here-in-after referred as the Act of 1950), therefore it stands settled with them under Section 9 of the said Act. He further submits that an alternative plea was also taken that even if the posses
The main legal point established is that for claiming a right under Section 123(1) of the Act of 1950, the claimant must prove possession and the construction of their house prior to the Act, and pro....
Defendants cannot claim rights under adverse possession or Section 123 due to contradictory positions, failing to prove their claims of ownership against established rights of the plaintiffs.
Claims of co-tenancy conflict with claims under Section 123 of the U.P. Act; the defendants failed to establish rights necessary to invoke protections under adverse possession.
Adverse possession cannot be claimed without acknowledging the true owner's title, and possession alone does not confer ownership rights without the requisite legal basis.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to interpret and apply the provisions of the Abolition Act and the Tenancy Act, and the requirement for the existence of a su....
The judgment establishes the importance of considering the rights and protections provided to agricultural laborers belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Section 122-B(4-F) of the ....
The court affirmed that land claimed as appurtenant must be essential for the beneficial enjoyment of the house, proven by long-term use, and clarified the distinctions between easementary rights and....
A landowner retains ownership of appurtenant land despite physical deterioration of the building, as possession based on historical claims and will documentation is recognized under relevant statutor....
The right to withdraw a suit at the appellate stage is not absolute; it depends on the crystallized rights established by the court's earlier judgments.
The provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 apply to land let out for non-agricultural purposes, and without a declaration under Section 143, the Civil Court la....
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
