Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Gaya Prasad (Since Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Upadhyay & Mr. Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kunal Shah, learned counsel for respondent no.5, Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.6-Gram Sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute relates to plot no.1120 area 0.034 hectare, 53M area 0.263 hectare and 1119 area 0.160 hectare total 3 plots area 0.457 hectare. One Rajendra Kumar son of Late Peetambar Nath (son of respondent no.5) filed a suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for declaration impleading State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha as defendants with the prayer that plaintiff be declared bhumidhar of the plot no.1120, 53M, 1119 total area 0.657 hectare. The aforementioned case was registered as Case No.200 of 1997 before Sub-Divisional Officer, Sirathu, District-Kaushambi. The issues were framed in the aforementioned suit. The parties adduced evidence in support of their case. Trial Court / Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide judgment and decree dated 26.8.1997 decreed the plaintiff suit and ordered to record the name of the plaintiff/ Rajen
Co-sharers must prove joint acquisition to claim rights in property; appeals filed after significant delays are not maintainable.
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.
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....
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.
Parties not involved in a second appeal lack standing to challenge the Board of Revenue's decision regarding land ownership.
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.
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.
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
