Back
JASPREET SINGH
Shampus – Appellant
Versus
Bhagwats – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second appeal context and legal groundwork. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background facts of the parties' dispute. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. arguments on entitlement under section 123. (Para 11 , 12 , 16) |
| 4. court's evaluation of procedural issues. (Para 14 , 19 , 22) |
| 5. assessment of claims under section 123. (Para 21 , 25) |
| 6. defendants’ dual claims of co-tenancy and statutory rights conflicting. (Para 24) |
| 7. analysis of evidence related to ownership rights. (Para 27 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. final judgment and dismissal of appeal. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT
Jaspreet Singh, J.
This is the defendants' second appeal against the judgment of reversal passed by the Lower Appellate Court dated 19.03.1986 passed in Civil Appeal No.113/1983 by which the appeal preferred by the defendants under section 96 CPC was dismissed and the Cross Objection filed therein by the plaintiffs came to be allowed, as a result, the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents came to be decreed in its entirety.
2. The instant second appeal was admitted by this Court by means of the order dated 15.07.1986 on Ground No.7 as enumerated in the memo of second appeal, which read as under:-
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.
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.
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....
The court upheld that an unregistered partition deed can provide context in disputes regarding possession, especially when substantiated by oral evidence of long-term use under Section 9 of the U.P. ....
Possession established under Section 9 of the U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act, with admissibility of partition deeds for evidential purposes despite non-signatory status.
The court ruled that a plaintiff must establish rights through proper succession reporting and admissible evidence, and findings from criminal proceedings do not bind civil courts.
The court affirmed that the state can claim adverse possession, emphasizing the necessity for plaintiffs to prove their title and possession to succeed in such suits.
The settlement order, revenue records, and lack of evidence supporting adverse possession claims were crucial in establishing the plaintiffs' continuous possession and defeating the defendants' claim....
The U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has a special status under the Constitution of India, and the general civil law would not be applicable over it. The determination of the nature of land exclusively falls with....
The court established that there is no limitation for filing a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, affirming the petitioners' continuous possession and rights over the disputed lan....
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
