Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMOO versus BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AT ALLAHABAD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramoo v. Board Of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad & Others - WRIT - B No. 28072 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9923 (19 May 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

Court No. 5

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28072 of 2006

Ramoo             ... ...... ......... Petitioner

Versus  

The Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad

and others   ......... ......... Respondents

------------

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

Heard Shri V. Singh counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.J. Mishra counsel for respondent no.3.

A suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was filed by the father respondent no.3. It appears that during the pendency of the suit a notification under Section 4 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued on 9.6.2001 but the suit was decreed exparte on 13.2.2003.  Against the decree respondent no.3 filed an appeal.  The Additional Commissioner found that the decree had been obtained by fraud. The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and after setting aside the trial court's order sent back the matter to the trial court for consideration of the question regarding effect of notification under Section 4 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Additional Commissioner also directed the trial court to consider whether the disputed land lies within the municipal limits. The petitioner filed second appeal, which has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The finding of the Additional Commissioner that the exparte decree was obtained by fraud is not vitiated by error of law. The question whether the suit would abate can be  decided only after the factual question whether this land lies in municipal limits is decided. The remand was therefore justified. The findings recorded by the courts below court do not suffer from any error, which may call for interference. Dismissed.  

Dt. 19.5.2006

sn


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.