Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Beni Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claiming lack of relief and title by the petitioner. (Para 4) |
| 2. defending the validity of the sale deed and actions taken by respondent no. 4. (Para 5) |
| 3. reflections on the disputes and outcomes of earlier orders. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court’s consideration of the written statement and sale deed execution. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. assessment of the legitimacy of previous court orders. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Certified copy of the order dated 4.4.2017 passed in Writ C No.9879 of 2017 as well as true copy of written statement filed in Suit No.86 of 1974 at the instance of learned counsel for the respondent no.4 are taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Ram Sajiwan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. G.S.D. Mishra and Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Mr. Shashi Kant Kushwaha, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to khata No. 55, 56 arazi Nos. 357, 358 and 359, total area 3-5-0 situated at Village Hanspur, Tehsil and District Kanpur Nagar. In the basic year khatauni, plots in question were recorded in the
The court reiterated that admissions in a written statement regarding property transactions create binding effects on claims of ownership, thereby restricting contesting rights based on previously es....
The court upheld that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless proven perverse, reinforcing the principle that claims related to property must be initiated within th....
The mutation application based on an unchallenged sale deed cannot be dismissed in summary proceedings, affirming the Board of Revenue's review authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Legal heirs can execute decrees on behalf of deceased predecessors under Section 146 CPC, despite not being original parties in prior proceedings.
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 absence of challenge to a sale deed justified the orders of recording land in favor of the Opposite Party, as previous judicial findings did not apply to the current property disputes.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and do not determine title; a registered sale deed remains valid until annulled by a competent court.
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
