Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Feram Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims regarding land division among siblings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dismissal of objections due to delay. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments supporting lateness due to alleged fraud. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. arguments from respondents regarding possession and delay. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. summary of factual background and ongoing claims. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. legal limitations on objections under u.p. consolidation of holdings act. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. assessment of petitions for condonation of delay. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. writ petition dismissed, maintaining lower orders. (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Petitioners and respondents are real brothers and are claiming their respective shares from a sale-deed dated 02.02.1960 in regard to land in dispute situated in village- Nagla Dariyay, Mauja Salempur, Paragana Safai, District- Etawah.
2. The parties were in a cultivatory possession of their respective land. It was the case of petitioners that respondents were in possession of land in excess of their respective shares and in these circumstances, petitioners have filed an objection under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 i.e. after about 33 years o
Orders and titles obtained through fraud are nullities; rightful ownership should not be barred by procedural delays attributable to such fraud.
The law of limitation must be strictly applied, and delay in filing petitions cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially in cases of negligence.
The law of limitation necessitates prompt legal action; extraordinary delays in appeals require compelling reasons for condonation, which were not present in this case.
The court established that excessive delay in filing title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act cannot be condoned, especially when the petitioner was aware of the proceedings.
The court emphasized that substantial justice prevails over technicalities in delay condonation, requiring sufficient cause to be shown for delays in appeals.
Petitioners' failure to timely assert their land rights bars their claim under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Inordinate delay in filing an appeal must be adequately explained; failure to do so results in dismissal of the petition.
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
