BAQRIDI Vs. INDRA VIR SINGH
LAWS(ALL)-1965-12-24
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (FROM: LUCKNOW)
Decided on December 21,1965

BAQRIDI Appellant
VERSUS
INDRA VIR SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

UMA SHANKER TEWARY VS. REX [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DEO NANDAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1988-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
BHULAN RAM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1988-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
JANGI LAL VS. DWARKA PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-1987-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
LALMANI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1988-7-19] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is a reference by tie Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich, recommending that the following order passed by the S. D. M. , Kaiserganj, in the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. , may be set aside, as it was against law: In this manner Ram Bharosey and Ali Jan both are liable to give accounts of 242 maunds and 20 seers (local) of late paddy each. In the local area in which the disputed lard is situate 2 local maunds constitute one standard maund. In this manner the two Supurdars are liable to give account of 121 maunds and 10 seers (standard) of late paddy each to the applicants. They may give this late paddy or the value calculated at 6 as per seer of late paddy. The total amount payable by them each will be Rs. 1818. 75 np.
(2.)AT the instance of Indra Vir Singh and Chandra Vir Singh proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. , were started in respect of plot No. 870/2 (measuring 5. 88 acres), of village Bulha, pergana Hasampur, district Bahraich. This land was attached under Section 146, Criminal P. C. The question of possession, over that land, was referred to the Munsif Bahraich. The Munsif recorded the following finding: It is not at all established as to on which particular land the first party was in possession. In the absence of the discharge of such burden the first party is not entitled to get established from this Court that they are really in possession. On the basis of that finding the Magistrate decided the case in favour of the second party, and ordered for the release of the disputed land in his favour. Being aggrieved with that order, the first party, namely Indra Vir Singh and Chandra Vir Singh filed a revision which was allowed by the High Court, and the case was remanded for retrial.
(3.)ON remand, when the question of possession was referred to the Munsif, he clearly found that it was the first party, namely, Indra Vir Singh and Chandra Vir Singh, who were in possession of the disputed property, on the relevant date. Acting on that finding, the Magistrate decided the case in favour of Indra Vir Singh and Chandra Vir Singh. The property was ordered to be released in their favour. The second party was prohibited from causing any interference in their possession.
;


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