Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Buddh Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Raj Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the contesting respondent nos.4/2.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute relates to plot no.988 area 0.29 acre (old plot no.1262 / 3, 1264/4) situated in Village-Tindwari, Pargana Tahsil & District-Banda. A civil suit no.115/ 1982 for mandatory injunction was filed on behalf of the Sheetal Prasad (father of respondent no.4/1 & 4/3) in respect to plot no.988 area 0.29 acre stating that the petitioners are recorded owner of the plot in dispute and defendants have carried out unauthorized construction in the north western corner of plot no.988, which is liable to be removed. Trial Court decreed the plaintiff suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.5.1985. Against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.1985 passed by trial Court, petitioners' father filed civil appeal No.63/1985 which was allowed vide judgment dated 5.11.1985 setting aside the judgment and decree of trial Court dated 29.5.1985 on the ground of jurisdi
Suits under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are of special character with no limitation for filing, and findings of fact by the trial Court were upheld.
The court established that there is no limitation for filing a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, affirming the petitioners' continuous possession and rights over the disputed lan....
The longstanding possession of defendants as bhumidhars cannot be disregarded, and the Board of Revenue must adhere to factual findings of lower courts in its second appellate jurisdiction.
Co-sharers must prove joint acquisition to claim rights in property; appeals filed after significant delays are not maintainable.
The U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has a special status under the Constitution of India, and the general civil law would not be applicable over it. The determination of the nature of land exclusively falls with....
The court affirmed that the trial court's decree granting bhumidhari rights was valid, and the Board of Revenue acted within its jurisdiction in upholding this decision.
A revision filed after a significant delay is an abuse of process, and the cancellation of a lease under the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act is final, barring further claims for possession.
The court upheld the trial court's finding that the unregistered will deed was forged, affirming the ancestral property rights of both sons as co-tenure holders.
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....
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
