Back
RAJNISH KUMAR
Gyanwati – Appellant
Versus
Sarseti Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Kumar, J.
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit bearing No.181 of 1981; Shiv Das v. Ram Pratap and Others, for permanent injunction against the defendant-appellants alleging that he is residing in the Village- Bhairavpur since the time of his ancestors and in the house of his ancestor. The land in dispute situated in the east of the house of the plaintiff marked as A B C D in the site plan was obtained by him through Ijazatnama dated 21.05.1947 from the defendant no.3 in the suit namely Avdhesh Pratap Singh; the then Zamindar. Thereafter he constructed mud house (Kachha Makan) on some portion, which fell in the flood of 1955. However, he is using the land in dispute as his abadi and raised a wall of bricks in the year 1977 and constructed a room with tin shed on the southern side of the land in dispute and filled the plinth on the northern side. The house and shop of the defendant nos.1 and 2 are at a distant place from the said place.
2. It has further been alleged that the plaintiff is in possession on the land in dispute since prior to 1947, therefore he has got the title on the same under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (here
The appellate court can reverse trial court findings and consider all evidence in a permanent injunction suit, even after confirming some findings, if the trial court inadequately assessed the eviden....
Possession established prior to the abolition of zamindari can confer rights under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, regardless of the validity of an unre....
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 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....
The First Appellate Court must comply with procedural requirements and evaluate evidence from both parties; failure to do so renders its findings perverse.
Possession follows title; entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. A suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking declaration of title when possession is established.
Revenue records do not confer title; civil courts lack jurisdiction over revenue matters, affirming the authority of revenue officials in correcting entries and ejecting trespassers.
The law in India accords with the jurisprudential thought as propounded by Salmond, respecting possession even if there is no title to support it. Possession can only be resumed by the true owner in ....
In a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff establishes title, a reasonable presumption of lawful possession can be drawn. The defendant's challenge to the title must be examined to determin....
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
