Decided on June 27,2013

SHANTI DEVI Respondents


PRAFULLA C.PANT,J. - (1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against judgment and decree dated 05.09.2000, passed by Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1999, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.09.1999, passed by the trial court [Civil Judge (Junior Division) Khatima] in Suit No.168 of 1989.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent No.1 instituted Suit No. 168 of 1989, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Khatima, for injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with possession of the plaintiff over land in suit with the pleadings that plaintiff's father in law Amar Singh was recorded tenure holder (BHUMIDHAR) of land of Khasra No. 228A of Khata No. 180 measuring 41 Bighas and 12 Biswas and also that of Khasra No. 228B measuring 2 Bighas and 6 Biswas. It is also pleaded that during his life time Amar Singh executed a registered "Will" dated 27.01.1981, in favour of the plaintiff and he died on 07.05.1989, whereafter, the plaintiff became owner in possession of the land in Suit. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants want to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for injunction.
(3.) DEFENDANTS contested the suit and filed their written statements (Defendant No. 3 Manohar Singh died during the pendency of the suit, and his name was later deleted). In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, it is stated that though registered "Will" dated 27.01.1981 was executed by Amar Singh in favour of the plaintiff, but thereafter, on 09.02.1989, a subsequent "Will" was executed by him, as such, the "Will" dated 27.01.1981 carried no force. It is also pleaded by the defendants that the they are in actual possession of half of the land in suit and are cultivating it. It is also stated that only on remaining half portion of the land in suit, plaintiff Shanti Devi is in possession. It is denied that the defendants have attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the land in suit in her possession. The defendants also took the legal pleas that the suit is barred by Section 331 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. They further pleaded that the suit is barred by Section 49 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953. They also pleaded that the suit is bad for non-joinder of Smt. Harbans Kaur.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.