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

2024 Supreme(All) 611

J. J. MUNIR
Mahesh Chand – Appellant
Versus
Brijesh Kumar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Kunal Shah.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ravi Kant, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. I.N. Singh, Mr. Gajendra Pratap, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhishek Kumar.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The Act of 1950 applies to land let out for non-agricultural purposes and requires a declaration under Section 143 to grant Civil Court jurisdiction; absence thereof leaves Civil Court lacking jurisdiction. (!) (!) (!) - Whether land within a town area falls under Act of 1950 depends on agricultural use and the presence or absence of a Section 143 declaration; urban area status does not automatically exclude application of the Act if the land remains agricultural. (!) (!) (!) - On failure to obtain Section 143 declaration for land used non-agriculturally, the Civil Court has jurisdiction issues and the matter may be required to be heard in a Revenue Court; the appellate court and this Court affirmed that absence of Section 143 leads to Civil Court lack of jurisdiction. (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


JUDGMENT :

1. This is a plaintiff’s second appeal. It arises out of a suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits.

2. The plaintiff’s suit aforesaid, being O.S. No.250 of 1974 was decreed by the Trial Court for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent from 01.07.1972 to 15.05.1974 and mesne profits from the date of determination of tenancy at the rate of Rs.10/- per day.

3. The defendant-respondent appealed to the District Judge of Bulandshahr from the Trial Court’s decree, which was numbered as Civil Appeal No.409 of 1981. The plaintiff filed a separate appeal from the Trial Court’s decree, seeking enhancement of the mesne profits awarded. This appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No.20 of 1982. Both the appeals were consolidated, heard together and decided by a common judgment, but separate decrees passed by the learned Special Judge/ Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr dated 27.07.1992. The defendant’s appeal was allowed whereas that by the plaintiff dismissed.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No.409 of 1981, the present second appeal has been preferred. The plaintiff appealed to this Court from the judgment and decree passed in Civi

      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