Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Hridaya Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of equal rights among siblings (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. challenges raised regarding evidence and procedures (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. final ruling and dismissal of the suit (Para 14 , 31) |
| 4. analysis of legal precedents and regulations (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 27 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. limits on appeal grounds reiterated (Para 18 , 24 , 26 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. The original plaintiffs (Hridya Prakash and Prabal Prakash sons of Ram Bharose Lal), have filed a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1950”) for division of holdings against original defendants (Vendees), whereas Vendors were Anand Prakash, Ved Prakash and Shree Prakash all sons of Ram Bharose and their father Ram Bharose, who sold their share to original defendants.
2. The original plaintiffs claimed that they have equal rights as their 3 brothers (4th already died) since they were also co-opted by their mother with consent of the Zamindar probably at later period.
3. An attempt was made by original defendants that plaintiffs were not born during 1352 Fasli i.e. 1945, but i
The Board of Revenue erred in disregarding documentary evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims and overstepped its jurisdiction by reversing concurrent factual findings of lower courts.
Tenure Land - Once a dispute was recorded by Assistant Consolidation Officer and on objection being filed same was referred to Consolidation Officer, it is incumbent to Consolidation Officer to decid....
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 reaffirmed that mere revenue entries do not suffice to establish adverse possession, which requires demonstrable continuity, publicity, and intent to possess as owner, thus justifying the i....
The Revisional Authority must provide sound reasoning when reversing lower court findings; mere admissions without corroborating evidence are insufficient to establish claims of ownership.
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 Board of Revenue's judgment setting aside trial court findings was arbitrary, lacking proper legal basis and factual consideration, thus the trial court's decree was affirmed.
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
