BANKEY SINGH Vs. RAM SABAD SINGH
LAWS(ALL)-1965-1-9
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 22,1965

BANKEY SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
RAM SABAD SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NAGESHAR RAM V. BANSBAHUDUR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KHADERU RAM TELI V. RAM KARAN AHIR [REFERRED TO]
HIMMAT SINGH V. CHANNOO LAL [REFERRED TO]
LATU V. MAHA LAXMI BAI [REFERRED TO]
MAN PAL VS. BIRJA [REFERRED TO]
ANGNU VS. MAHABIR [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEO VS. BASDEO [REFERRED TO]
D N REGE, SOLICITOR THROUGH GOPAL LAL MUKHTARAM VS. KAZI MUHAMMAD HAIDER [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SWARUPA AND OTHERS VS. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION UP AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1970-3-35] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.N. Singh, J. - (1.)THIS is a defendant's appeal in a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the plots in suit, in the alternative prayer for delivery of possession was also made.
(2.)THE plaintiff's case in brief was that prior to the abolition of zamindari the second defendant Mst. Phulesara was the occupancy tenant of the plots in suit. She deposited ten times of the rent and became Bhumidhar of the plots in suit. She executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on March 10, 1954 and put the plaintiff in possession over the plots in suit. THE plaintiff alleged that on the basis of wrong entries made in favour of defendant No. 1 he was interfering with the peaceful pos-session of the plaintiff, hence the suit.
The defendants Bankey Singh and Mst. Phulesara contested the suit, inter aha on the grounds that Mst. Phulesara did not execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff; that the sale deed was without consideration and that Mst. Phulesara was not legally competent to sell the tenancy land. It was also alleged that she had surrendered the holding in favour of the zamindar defendant No. 1 (Bankey Singh) who had entered into possession prior to the abolition of zamindari and the land had become his khudkasht. The bar of limitation was also pleaded.

The trial Court accepted the title of the plaintiff but held that the plaintiff was not in possession over the land in suit. It gave a categorical finding that on the evidence on record defendants' possession was established, as such he decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession as against the defendants.

(3.)THE defendants preferred an appeal against the above decision and the learned Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh, affirmed both the findings of the trial Court and maintained the decree of that Court.
In this appeal before me the learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions: (1) that Smt. Phulesara had obtained a bhumidhari Sanad on April 6, 1954 and the sale in favour of the plaintiff had been executed on March 10, 1954, as such the sale was void because till then she had not acquired transferable interest in the property in suit; and (2) that on the facts found by the two courts below the civil court erroneously granted the relief of possession which was not within the jurisdiction of the civil court.

;


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