Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
IRSHAD ALI
Ram Khelawan – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Faizabad Division – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim based on inherited rights. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. allegations of fraud and improper claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. respondents' claims were set aside due to lack of evidence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court's analysis of claims and rights under consolidation law. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. the quashing of previous orders for lack of legal basis. (Para 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Heard Sri R.S. Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Virendra Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 26.7.1995 passed by opposite party no.1 contained in Annexure.6 and judgment and order dated 19.6.1997 passed by opposite party no.2 contained in Annexure No.11.
3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner’s father Buddhu was granted a patta on 10.06.1947 by Raja Ayodhya Estate in respect of Plot No. 231/90, area 5 bigha. His name was duly recorded in the revenue records. After Buddhu’s death in 1976, the petitioner being his sole heir
The court ruled that claims of joint ownership must be substantiated with evidence, and the applicability of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bars civil court jurisdiction in cons....
Unregistered Wills granting limited interests do not negate partition rights unless claims about the nature of interests are timely raised during consolidation proceedings, reinforcing exclusive juri....
Orders and titles obtained through fraud are nullities; rightful ownership should not be barred by procedural delays attributable to such fraud.
The suit for cancellation of a sale-deed was barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a Joint Hindu Family or that the propert....
The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act for matters related to land subject to consolidation, unless fraud is proven, which was not established in this case.
Point of law : There is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that property is a joint family....
The principle of res judicata applies at every stage of proceedings, and once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of the proceeding.
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
