Back
JAYANT BANERJI
Ram Dular – Appellant
Versus
Aliyar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inheritance and joint tenancy in family property (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. application for restoration under cpc and limitation (Para 5) |
| 3. defendant's participation in prior proceedings (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. validity of gift deed and ownership rights (Para 7) |
| 5. court's duty in assessing claims of fraud (Para 9 , 11) |
| 6. jurisdiction of revenue courts vs. civil courts (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 7. grounds for appeal under zamindari abolition act (Para 14) |
| 8. orders of board of revenue reviewed (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
Jayant Banerji, J.
Heard Shri Sanjeev Singh and Shri Amit Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri N.D. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 2 is represented by the learned Standing Counsel. Notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 has been accepted by Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel.
2. This writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 17.3.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 917 of 2015 ( Aliyar v. Ram Dular and others). By means of the impugned decision of the Board, (i) a preliminary
The Board of Revenue's judgment setting aside trial court findings was arbitrary, lacking proper legal basis and factual consideration, thus the trial court's decree was affirmed.
Restoration applications for ex-parte decrees are maintainable and do not abate under the U.P.C.H. Act, even if consolidation operations are ongoing.
The Board of Revenue erred in disregarding documentary evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims and overstepped its jurisdiction by reversing concurrent factual findings of lower courts.
The court ruled that title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided on merit, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdiction and evidence rather than relying on alleged c....
The court affirmed that the trial court's decree granting bhumidhari rights was valid, and the Board of Revenue acted within its jurisdiction in upholding this decision.
Restoration applications under CPC do not abate under Section 5(2) of the Consolidation Act, allowing for adjudication on merits.
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
