RAM JIAWAN Vs. AWADH LAL
LAWS(ALL)-2002-4-205
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 04,2002

Ram Jiawan Appellant
VERSUS
Awadh Lal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

GIRDHARI LAL, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the order dated 29-1-93 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad by which first appeal filed by Ram Jiawan against the order ofthe learned trial Court dated 26-4-79 was dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of this case is that a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed by Ram Jiawan and Sohan Lal against Gur Dayal etc. on the ground that the disputed Land No. 1412 (area 2-16-0) was recorded in the name of Dhodhey son of Fakire and Dhodhey has executed a registered Rehannama in favour of Ram Dayal. Dhodhey died issueless and after the death of Dhodhey their brother's son co-partner and co-tenant came into possession. On 20-3-59 plaintiff and their brother Khushi Ram redeemed the above Rehannama and receipt was obtained by them but due to the mistake of the Lakhpal the name of the defendants is continuing in the revenue records. After considering the contentions of both the parties the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 26-4-79. First appeal was filed before the learned Additional Commissioner. This first appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 29-1-93. Second appeal before the Board of Revenue is preferred by Ram Jiawan etc. Substantial question of law has been formulated by the Counsel for the appellant mainly on the basis of the application for formation of substantial question of law. Five points of substantial questions of law has been framed. Mainly whether the redemption of mortgage dated 20-3-59 the name of respondents can be recorded in the revenue records. Whether the provisions of Order IX, Rule 1 C.P.C. are mandatory and defendants were not entitled to file successive written statement and whether the defendants were bound by their admission contained in their written statement dated 20-8-73. Whether the impugned judgment of two Courts below are contrary to both law and facts involved in the case.
(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the original file.;


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