Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHAMPAT SINGH versus KISHAN LAL @ MUKHIYA & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Champat Singh v. Kishan Lal @ Mukhiya & Others - SECOND APPEAL No. 805 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13267 (1 August 2007)

 

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. Pankaj Mithal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of suit for declaration that he may be declared owner of part of Khasra No. 444 area 112.05 Sq. yards which he alleges to have purchased vide sale deed dated 31.3.1995. According to the plaintiff-appellants the aforesaid portion of the land is part of Khasra No. 444, the entire land of Khasra No. 444 was not acquired by the State of U.P. for the benefit of the U.P. Avas and Vikas Parishad. An area of 1 Biswa 10 Biswansi from the said Khasra was left from acquisition as it was an Abadi land.  The portion of the land of which he is claiming declaration is part of the said 1 Biswa 10 Biswansi of the land.  On the other hand the respondents have contended that the land in dispute is not part of Khasra No. 444 as alleged but is part of Khasara plot No. 447 which has duly been acquired. There is no dispute about the acquisition of Khasra plot No. 447. On the basis of the pleadings the Trial Court  framed necessary issues and issue No.3 being - whether the land in dispute is part of Khasra No. 444 or is actually part of Khasra No. 447. On the aforesaid issue after the parties have lead evidence, both the Courts below concurrently recorded that the land in dispute is part of Khasra No.447 which has been validly acquired and is not part of Khasra No. 444. The aforesaid finding is a pure finding of fact.

Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show any infirmity or perversity in the said finding. The appeal involves no substantial question of law.

It is accordingly, dismissed.

Dt. 1.8.2007

S.S. 805 /07

               


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.