Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Kalawati – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Sri. R.N. Tripathi assisted by Sri. Kamlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.- 9,10 & 11, Sri. Anshul Nigam, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Sri. Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that suit under Section 144/116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been filed by the petitioners, claiming co-tenancy right along with defendants to the extent of 1/2 share as well as partition of the plots. The suit was registered as Suit No.T201702323055366 of 2017-18. The S.D.M., Karchhana, Prayagraj/respondent no.3 issued notice to the defendants in the aforementioned suit. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 have filed their written statement, denying the plaint allegations. Respondent no.3 framed issued in the aforementioned suit. During pendency of the aforementioned suit proceeding, an application under Section 212(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed on behalf of defendant nos. 1 to 3, to transfer the suit proceeding from the court concerned to any other court which was registered as Case No.06884/2019 befor
Transfer applications must be based on genuine grounds; repeated applications causing undue delay in proceedings are unjustified.
The court determines that ongoing legal proceedings negate the need for interference in property mutation matters based on a Will-deed, emphasizing adherence to procedural integrity.
Court emphasized the necessity of maintaining interim orders during appeal proceedings and directing merits-based adjudication.
In partition suits, additional issues may be rejected if existing issues sufficiently address the involvement of the parties and the matter at hand.
Transfer applications require substantial evidence of bias; mere apprehension is insufficient for judicial intervention.
A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.
The court emphasized the necessity of a fair hearing in legal proceedings, ruling that ex-parte orders and technical rejections of applications cannot deny substantive justice.
Objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and failure to do so results in waiver; appeals under the UP Revenue Code must follow the prescribed procedures, and jurisdictio....
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
