SHEODHYAN SINGH Vs. SANICHARA KUER
LAWS(SC)-1961-5-9
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
May 04,1961
SHEODHYAN SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
SANICHARA KUER
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
BABAJI DEHURI VS. BIRANCHI ANANTA [LAWS(ORI)-1996-3-13] [REFERRED TO]BASUDEV DAS VS. SOMENATH DAS [LAWS(ORI)-1963-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
BIBI UMAINTUN NISA VS. BIBI NASIBA KHATOON & ANR. [LAWS(PAT)-2012-9-90] [REFERRED TO]
S VIPRAMAMBA VS. MUSULUZU ANASUYA [LAWS(APH)-2005-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHENDU BIKASH LASHKAR VS. NARAYAN CHANDRA BHOWMIK [LAWS(GAU)-2012-6-61] [REFERRED TO]
KALKONDA PANDU RANGAIAH VS. KALKONDA KRISHNAIAH [LAWS(APH)-1973-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
GANGADHARAPPA VS. J.M. RAMAIAH AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-7-91] [REFERRED TO]
SAU.VARSHA VS. GHANSHYAM [LAWS(BOM)-2020-1-362] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU ANANT DESSAI VS. GOVIND VITHAL SAWANT [LAWS(BOM)-2020-8-153] [REFERRED TO]
ANANTRAO VS. BEGUMBI [LAWS(KAR)-2023-12-100] [REFERRED TO]
JONARAM DAS VS. MD ABDUL KADIR [LAWS(GAU)-2006-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
DELTA PRODUCTS PVT LTD VS. INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(BOM)-1978-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
DINABANDHU SETHI VS. CHINTAMONI SAHU [LAWS(ORI)-1970-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMRU YADAV VS. TANUK LAL YADAV AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2013-5-84] [REFERRED TO]
MUSTAFA KAMAL @ MD. MUSTAFA KAMAL VS. MAHMOODA KHATOON [LAWS(PAT)-2014-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF RAMANUJ PRASAD VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD A PUBLIC SECTOR COMPANY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICER AT INDIAN OIL BHAWAN, MUMBAI [LAWS(PAT)-2020-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SAKUNTALA DEVI WIFE OF SRI MITHU CHOUDHARY VS. MAHENDRA CHOUDHARY [LAWS(PAT)-2018-1-425] [REFERRED TO]
IRRUVURU RAMACHANDRAREDDY VS. KOPPALA BHUSHNAM [LAWS(APH)-2006-7-105] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANNA NARAYAN SARANGI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1996-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
SATYENDRA SHUKLA VS. MANORAMA RAGHUVANSHI [LAWS(MPH)-2012-6-144] [REFERRED TO]
S. UTTAMCHAND VS. R. ANJUGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2012-6-380] [REFERRED TO]
MEHATAB BEGUM VS. BHAGWANDAS [LAWS(APH)-2008-9-114] [REFERRED TO]
GURRAPU PENCHALAIAH AND OTHERS VS. RAYAPU CHINNAIAH AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-10-35] [REFERRED TO]
PR. PALANIAPPAN VS. CT. C. NACHIAPPA CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-2020-12-166] [REFERRED TO]
SAJAL KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. DISTRICT JUDGE BALLIA & 14 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-301] [REFERRED]
MUNNA KUMAR PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAMCHANDRA PRASAD VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(PAT)-2013-5-70] [REFERRED TO]
PRADIP KUMAR PAUL S/O LT JAMINI MOHAN PAUL VS. NITYA GOPAL ROY S/O LATE BISWESWAR ROY [LAWS(GAU)-2014-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR VS. RAM NARAYAN [LAWS(CHH)-2019-7-211] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHPATI SAHU AND OTHERS VS. BED PRAKASH AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ORI)-2018-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
P UDAYANI DEVI VS. V V RAJESHWARA PRASAD RAO [LAWS(SC)-1995-2-32] [RELIED ON]
BHABANI SARMA VS. NARAYAN SARMA [LAWS(GAU)-2003-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALAMMA VS. KENCHE GOWDA [LAWS(KAR)-1971-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR AHUJA VS. GULAB RAI KHANCHANDANI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-61] [REFERRED TO]
RAMDEV, VS. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-319] [REFERRED TO]
HAMSATH BEEVI VS. SAFFIYATH BEEVI [LAWS(KER)-2011-4-121] [REFERRED TO]
SANKARA RAMESHWARAR DEVASTHANAM VS. PITCHAIAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1999-6-40] [REFERRED TO]
BONDA MARY VS. SIMHAGIRI CHITS FUNDS PVT LTD [LAWS(APH)-2022-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS VS. SRI JAGANNATH PADHY (DEAD) [LAWS(ORI)-2015-11-80] [REFERRED TO]
R RAGHU VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2007-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
DELTA PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1978-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
RAM JIWAN RAI VS. DEOKI NANDAN RAI [LAWS(PAT)-2004-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
DANDAPANI NAIK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1986-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
GURRAM ANANTHA REDDY VS. KATLA SAYANNA [LAWS(APH)-2015-3-127] [REFERRED TO]
CHERUKUWADA VIJAYA LAKSHMI VS. VELURI SITAPATHI [LAWS(APH)-2003-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
C. RAJAMALLAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-1-150] [REFERRED TO]
BAHADUR ALI VS. OMED ALI [LAWS(GAU)-2013-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
GIRDHARILAL DINDAYAL AGARWAL & ANR. VS. M/S. SARVODAYA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-84] [REFERRED TO]
CHITTURI PERRAJU AND ANOTHER VS. YEDNAPUDI VENKAMMA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-1964-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUNA PRASAD VS. MOHAN PRASAD [LAWS(PAT)-2012-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
MODERN MINERAL PROCESSING COMPANY (P) LTD. VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, ORISSA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND 4 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-91] [REFERRED TO]
BANDA PULLA REDDY VS. BANDA LAKSHMAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2014-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITHA BALAJI AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND 12 OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-8-63] [REFERRED]
SRI NIMAI CHANDRA LAHA AND ORS. VS. SRI MADHUSUDAN NATH AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2008-4-112] [REFERRED TO]
T.NAGAPPAIAH NAVADA VS. VENKATAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2024-2-98] [REFERRED TO]
KARIYAPPA VS. PUTTASWAMY [LAWS(KAR)-2022-2-146] [REFERRED TO]
DR. JAYASHEELA VENU VS. A.J.F.DSOUZA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
SUSEELA VS. P M VEERARAGAVAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-409] [FOLLOWED ON]
DATTATRAYA GANESH BHAT VS. SURENDER KUMARI [LAWS(KAR)-1996-1-58] [REFERRED TO]
Ernath VS. Sri. Digameer and another [LAWS(KAR)-1999-7-71] [REFERRED TO]
PARASHURAM VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-1997-7-225] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION TH. GENERAL SECRETARY VS. STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2017-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERTECH URBAN HOME BUYERS ASSOCIATION (SUHA) FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR VS. RATTAN PARKASH [LAWS(P&H)-2006-2-499] [REFERRED TO]
CHITTURI PERRAJU VS. YEDNAPUDI VENKAMMA [LAWS(APH)-1969-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAWANDAS VS. ROASENE JEROME DSOUZA [LAWS(KAR)-1994-9-31] [FOLLOWED ON]
HOLY MOTHER OF AUROBINDO ASHRAM OF PONDICHERRY VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2000-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. AMARJIT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-209] [REFERRED TO]
NANNU LAL VS. RAM PYARI BAI [LAWS(MPH)-1997-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDER CHOURASIA VS. BIJAY DAS [LAWS(PAT)-2013-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
KANNU REDDIAR VS. T PALANIRAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-1995-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
TEJAL VS. PRAGYANAND [LAWS(MPH)-2023-1-125] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDER VS. DEVI SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1990-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA SHANKAR PANDEY VS. MAHESH KUMAR BHARGAWA [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-208] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Wachoo, J. -
(1.)This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Patna High Court. The respondents brought a suit with respect to ten plots of land and claimed a declaration that the property belonged to them and prayed for possession of the plots by ejectment of the defendants-appellants and for mesne profits. Besides the appellants, there was another set of defendants to the suit from whom the respondents purchased the property. The respondent's case was that the appellants had taken a loan from the other defendants on a mortgage bond on the basis of which those defendants instituted a suit in 1932. This suit was decreed against the appellants and thereafter the other defendants got the mortgaged property sold by auction in execution and purchased it themselves in 1936. Thereafter the other defendants entered into possession of the property delivery of which was made to them by court. The other defendants remained in possession of the property till they sold it to the respondents in 1943. Thereafter the respondents came into possession of the property. The appellants however began to create trouble from 1942. After the sale to the respondents, the appellants created further trouble which led to proceedings in a criminal court under S. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the appellants were forbidden from going to the property in dispute. Later on, the appellants were bound down under S. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to keep the peace. In 1945 there was a murder in connection with this property on account of which some of the appellants were tried by the court of session but were acquitted. There were further troubles over the crop of these plots in 1945. Eventually after their acquittal by the court of session, the appellants took possession of the property by forcibly dispossessing the respondents. Consequently the respondents filed the suit out of which this appeal has arisen in July 1946.
(2.)The suit was resisted by the defendants are however not concerned now. The only point urged before us by learned counsel for the appellants is with respect to three plots out of the ten which were the subject matter of the suit. The trial court accepted the case put forward on behalf of the respondents and decreed the suit for possession and ordered that mesne profits would be determined subsequently. There was then an appeal by the present appellants to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal except as to one plot with respect to which the suit of the respondents was dismissed. As the decree was at variance the High Court granted a certificate; and that is how the present appeal has come up before us.
(3.)We have already pointed out that the learned counsel for the appellants has confined his arguments before us with respect only to three plots, namely, 1060, 427 and 1128, out of the ten plots which were in dispute in the courts below. His contention is that in any case the courts below were wrong in granting possession to the respondents with respect to these three plots. We propose therefore to deal with the contentions raised in respect of these three plots only. Re. Plot No. 1060.
(2.)The suit was resisted by the defendants are however not concerned now. The only point urged before us by learned counsel for the appellants is with respect to three plots out of the ten which were the subject matter of the suit. The trial court accepted the case put forward on behalf of the respondents and decreed the suit for possession and ordered that mesne profits would be determined subsequently. There was then an appeal by the present appellants to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal except as to one plot with respect to which the suit of the respondents was dismissed. As the decree was at variance the High Court granted a certificate; and that is how the present appeal has come up before us.
(3.)We have already pointed out that the learned counsel for the appellants has confined his arguments before us with respect only to three plots, namely, 1060, 427 and 1128, out of the ten plots which were in dispute in the courts below. His contention is that in any case the courts below were wrong in granting possession to the respondents with respect to these three plots. We propose therefore to deal with the contentions raised in respect of these three plots only. Re. Plot No. 1060.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.