Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GIRISH NARAIN MISHRA versus KHUDABAND KARIM JALLEY LALAHU AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Girish Narain Mishra v. Khudaband Karim Jalley Lalahu And Others - WRIT - C No. 11163 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4159 (22 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition challenges the orders dated 17.11.2005 and 18.2.2005 passed by the revisional court and trial court respectively.

An application was moved by the petitioner/defendant for the purposes to direct the plaintiff to give specific Khasra number of the disputed land to which a reply was filed by the plaintiff and it was stated that the Municipal number which has been given in the plaint is the Khasra number and there is no requirement for the plaintiff/respondent to give a fresh number of the disputed land after Khasra number. The courts below, thus, finding that the description of the property by Municipal number may also be the description of the property in Khasra number and in view of this, the petitioner's application has been dismissed.

The findings arrived at by the courts below do not appear to be such which require any interference in extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court in a writ petition  under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The plaintiff has to prove its case. It is he who has to identify the property and also to prove his one or the other right and title over the property. If the property is not properly identified, the suit of the plaintiff will fail.   The anxiety of the petitioner in this regard for proper identification of the land by the plaintiff is wholly unjustifiable. In case the plaintiff does not prove and identify the disputed property, the suit is bound to fail.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner/defendant to direct the plaintiff to identify the property by Khasra number is incomprehensible. This Court in such matters will hardly interfere and as such this petition fails and is dismissed.

22.2.2006

SUA/11163-06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.