SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Kela – Appellant
Versus
Jahangir Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.-Heard Sri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Syed Ashraf Ali, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
2. In the present case, contesting original respondent has filed a Suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 (for short ''Act of 1950'') against original Petitioners-1 and 2 for declaration that he was a co-tenure holder in suit property with defendants. The Suit was dismissed vide order dated 23.6.1970. In said Suit, following 5 issues were framed :
2. Whether defendants No. 1 and 2 are sole sirdar in the land in suit?
3. Whether suit is barred under Order IX Rule 8 CPC?
4. Whether suit is barred by res-judicata?
5. What relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?''
3. Issues No. 3, 4 and 5 were not pressed and only issues No. 1 and 2 were decided. For reference, relevant part thereof is quoted below :
Banarasi and others v. Ram Phal
Bishnudeo Narain and another v. Seogeni Rai and others
Budhlal and another v. D.D.C., Gorakhpur
Kale and others v. D.D.C. and others
R.S.R.T.C. and another v. Bajrang Lal
Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi
Sri Ramchandra Mission and another v. P. Rajgopalachari and others
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 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....
A recorded tenant's consent is essential for an unrecorded co-tenant to acquire Bhumidhari rights; absence of such consent invalidates claims to ownership.
The court established that property was self-acquired, not ancestral, and rejected claims of adverse possession and family settlement due to lack of evidence.
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....
Family settlements may not require registration if agreed upon previously, as affirmed by established legal principles.
The BPPHT Act's provisions, particularly Section 18, bar civil suits challenging settlement orders unless fraud or jurisdictional issues are proven, emphasizing the finality of administrative decisio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.