Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. BATTUL & OTHERS versus RAM CHANDRA YADAV & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Battul & Others v. Ram Chandra Yadav & Others - SECOND APPEAL No. - 1150 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 14962 (3 September 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 AT ALLAHABAD

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

The plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below by which the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed.

The Original Suit had been filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' right and possession and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the constructions made by them on the land marked in the Plaint map. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that Abadi plot No. 13 measuring 13 biswas was owned by Zamindar Akbari Bibi who had settled the said land with the father of the plaintiffs in 1904 after accepting a Nazrana of Rs. 4/- and had executed a receipt and after that the plaintiffs' father came into possession of the said plot. However, the defendants started raising constructions on the said plot and, therefore, the suit was filed.

The defendants denied that the plaintiffs' father was in possession of the disputed plot and on the contrary it was stated that the defendants' father was in possession over the disputed land since 1964 and had raised the constructions. It was also stated that Akbari Bibi was not the Zamindar and nor had she made any settlement in favour of the plaintiffs. The Trial Court dismissed the Suit and the Appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed. The Courts below have recorded a categorical finding of fact that the Zamindar Akbari Bibi had not executed any receipt in favour of the plaintiffs. The Courts below have also recorded a categorical finding on the basis of the evidence both documentary and oral that the plaintiffs were neither the owners of the disputed land and nor were they in possession of the said land. The documentary evidence filed by the plaintiffs had been considered in detail while arriving at the aforesaid findings.

Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to place any material before the Court which may suggest that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse. The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage as no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Dt/- 3.9.2007

Sharma/1150


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.