ACHOO KHAN Vs. ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN MANAGING OFFICER, FATEHGARH AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1965-3-33
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 12,1965

Achoo Khan Appellant
VERSUS
Assistant Custodian Managing Officer, Fatehgarh And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HASEENA BEGUM V. ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTIES,MUZAFFARNAGAR [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN SINGH VS. CHAMAN PASWAN [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.N. Singh, J. - (1.)THIS is a Plaintiff's appeal in a suit Under Section 180 of the UP Tenancy Act by which the Plaintiff prayed for the ejectment of the Defendants and for recovery of Rs. 84/ as damages.
(2.)THE case of the Plaintiff in brief was that he was the hereditary tenant of the plots in suit. He had filled a suit No. 3 of 1960 against the Custodian Defendant No. 1 Under Section 59 of the UP Tenancy Act and in that suit it had been finally decided that the Plaintiff was the tenant of the plots in suit. It was said that after the aforesaid decision the Defendant No. I illegally purported to transfer the plots in suit in favour of Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and illegally dispossessed the Plaintiff from the plots in suit, as such the necessity of the present suit. On these allegations the Plaintiff filed the instant suit for the relief already mentioned.
The Defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit. The suit was contested on behalf of Defendants 2 and 3 who alleged themselves to be the transferees of Defendant No. 1. They denied the tenancy right of the Plaintiff. They claimed to be the proprietors of the land in suit. They challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court and asserted that the suit was not maintainable. The learned Assistant Collector, Farrukhabad, framed as many as 10 issues in the case, but relevant issues for the purposes of this appeal arc:

(1) Whether the Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the proprietors of the land in suit as alleged ?

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is hereditary tenant of the land and is entitled to sue ?

(3) Whether the decision of the previous suit between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 is binding upon the parties to the present suit ?

(4) Whether the jurisdiction of the court is barred by the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act ?

The issue about proprietary right of Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 was referred to the competent Civil Court which returned its finding to the effect that Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were not the proprietors of the land in suit. The Assistant Collector decided the other three issues land held that in view of the decision in suit No. 3 of 1960 the Plaintiff was the hereditary tenant of the plot in suit and was entitled to sue; that the Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 claimed the land in suit through Defendant No. 1 as such the decision of the previous suit between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 was binding on the Defendants Nos. 2 and 3; and that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in view of Sections 8, 9, 10 and 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. On these findings the Assistant Collector dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff.

(3.)THE Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Farrukhabad, who by his order dated 2.2. 1962 affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.
;


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