Back
JASPREET SINGH
Shampu – Appellant
Versus
Bhagwat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second appeal competency and initial rulings context (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual claims about ownership and construction (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. trial court judgment and considerations (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. counsel arguments regarding section 123 (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's analysis of significant issues. (Para 20 , 23) |
| 6. arguments on rights under relevant sections. (Para 22) |
| 7. court's analysis of section 123 applicability (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. assessment of evidence in ownership claims (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. final ruling affirming lower court's decision (Para 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. This is the defendants' second appeal against the judgment of reversal passed by the Lower Appellate Court dated 19.03.1986 passed in Civil Appeal No.113/1983 by which the appeal preferred by the defendants under Section 96 CPC was dismissed and the Cross Objection filed therein by the plaintiffs came to be allowed, as a result, the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents came to be decreed in its entirety.
2. The instant second appeal was admitted by this Court by means of the order dated 15.07.1986 on Ground No.7 as enumerated in the memo of second appeal, w
Defendants cannot claim rights under adverse possession or Section 123 due to contradictory positions, failing to prove their claims of ownership against established rights of the plaintiffs.
Claims of co-tenancy conflict with claims under Section 123 of the U.P. Act; the defendants failed to establish rights necessary to invoke protections under adverse possession.
The main legal point established is that for claiming a right under Section 123(1) of the Act of 1950, the claimant must prove possession and the construction of their house prior to the Act, and pro....
The court upheld that an unregistered partition deed can provide context in disputes regarding possession, especially when substantiated by oral evidence of long-term use under Section 9 of the U.P. ....
Possession established under Section 9 of the U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act, with admissibility of partition deeds for evidential purposes despite non-signatory status.
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 provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 apply to land let out for non-agricultural purposes, and without a declaration under Section 143, the Civil Court la....
The court affirmed that the state can claim adverse possession, emphasizing the necessity for plaintiffs to prove their title and possession to succeed in such suits.
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....
The Court upheld that the relevant date for determining land rights is the date of vesting, and concurrent findings of authorities should not be disturbed unless proven to be perverse.
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
