BIR SINGH Vs. KESHO RAM
LAWS(ALL)-1971-1-14
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 12,1971

BIR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
KESHO RAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CHANDRA BHAN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
HORAM VS. REX [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

NARSINGH BAHADUR SRIVASTAVA VS. BOARD OF REVENUE U P [LAWS(ALL)-1983-9-64] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and de cree of the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar dated 6th of February, 1970.
(2.)THE plaintiff respondent had filed a suit, No. 3 of 1966, under Section 202 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, for the ejectment of the defendants appellants from the plots in dispute. The suit was decreed on 20-5-1967. An application for execution of that decree was made and it is said that plaintiff obtained the 'dakhal' over the plots in dispute on 24-5-1967. On 17th of Octo ber, 1967, plaintiff filed the present suit claiming a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over or cultivation of the land in suit.
The suit was contested by the defendants. They admitted that the plain tiff's suit, for ejectment of the defendants under Section 202 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, had been decreed. According to them the plaintiff did not obtain possession over the plots in dispute which continued to be with the defendants. The delivery of pos session, claimed to have been effected on 24-5-67, was not in accordance with law and as such it was no delivery. The trial court came to the conclusion that possession over the plots in dispute had been delivered to the plaintiff on 24-5-1967. On that date certain crop which had been shown by the defendants was standing on those plots. The defendants were entitled to cut-and-harvest that crop. In the result it decreed the suit for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. It however, made it clear that notwithstanding the injunction issued by the court the de fendants were entitled to harvest the crop which they had sown and which was in exist ence on 24-5-1967, the date of the delivery of the possession mentioned in the 'dakhalnama'.

(3.)THE defendants went up in ap peal. The lower appellate court affirmed the decree passed by the trial court and dis missed the appeal. The defendants have now come up in second appeal before this Court.


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