Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Ajay Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue U. P. at Allahabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. Heard Sri Lalji Chaudhary, learned counsel for petitioners, Ms. Rekha Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and Sri Durga Charan Singh Yadav, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 and 8.
2. Petitioners have set up a case that contesting respondent Jeet Narayan Singh has filed a suit under Section 229 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act on 1.1.1976 for declaration of his title over the disputed land. The suit was contested by mother of petitioner and has filed her written statement. The other written statement was filed by Smt.Mahdei and Smt. Amar Dei and according to petitioners, the said documents are not available in the records.
3. It appears that in aforesaid suit 9 issues were framed (details of same are not on record) and it further appears that issue No. 5 was whether the suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The said issue was considered as a preliminary issue and learned Trial Court by an order dated 29.9.1981, decided the said issue and held that suit was barred by Section 49 of the said Act. Relevant part of the order is reproduced hereinafter:
4. The said order was challenged at the behest of contesti
Preliminary issues involving mixed questions of law and fact must be decided alongside all issues, not in isolation, as per established legal principles.
The principle of res judicata applies at every stage of proceedings, and once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of the proceeding.
The court ruled that claims of joint ownership must be substantiated with evidence, and the applicability of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bars civil court jurisdiction in cons....
The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act for matters related to land subject to consolidation, unless fraud is proven, which was not established in this case.
Unregistered Wills granting limited interests do not negate partition rights unless claims about the nature of interests are timely raised during consolidation proceedings, reinforcing exclusive juri....
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.
A co-sharer in ancestral property retains their rights despite not participating in consolidation proceedings, and their claims cannot be dismissed solely based on procedural bars without a substanti....
Peaceful co-habitation among co-sharers does not necessitate objections under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, preserving their property rights under the Constitution.
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
