STATE OF U P Vs. SHANTI DEVI
LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-171
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 04,2013

STATE OF U P Appellant
VERSUS
SHANTI DEVI Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

PARAS NATH VS. BANKEY LAL [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
BABLU VS. BETIBAI AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-238] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. JYOTI DEVI VS. SHRI BANWARI LAL [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-328] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP ALIAS RAJU VS. SOMARA DEVI AND 11 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-313] [REFERRED TO]
SAMIULLAH VS. STATE OF U P AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-218] [REFERRED TO]
HABIBULLAH VS. BABU [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-447] [REFERRED TO]
KAPIL DEO SINGH AND OTHERS VS. RAJENDRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-627] [REFERRED TO]
BASIR VS. SMT. ASGARI BEGUM AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-651] [REFERRED TO]
DASHI VS. SRIKANT AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-696] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA PAL VS. BUDHAI [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-260] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Heard learned Standing Counsel for appellants.
(2.)Plaintiff-respondents instituted a suit for injunction, possession and demolition in respect to property in dispute. They set up claim on the basis of ownership rights. Defendant-appellants contested the suit asserting that they are in possession of property in dispute for more than 50 years and, therefore, they cannot be evicted from property in dispute. Trial Court decided issues no. 1 and 2 regarding ownership etc. only on the ground that plaintiffs could not give the boundaries of their property and, therefore, it was not identifiable. Lower Appellant Court, however, found that so far as the disputed property is concerned, parties were admittedly in a position to understand as to what property is in dispute and that is how defendants had raised plea that they are in possession for several years. However, pleadings of defendants were short of satisfying requirement of adverse possession and requisite pleadings of adverse possession was also missing. Lower Appellate Court also found that ownership rights of plaintiffs were not found to be challenged or assailed and on the contrary, were proved with adequate documentary evidence, referred to in lower Appellate Court's judgment.
(3.)Before this Court the findings of lower Appellate Court have not been attempted to be shown perverse. It is not the case of defendant-appellants that they adduced any evidence before the Court below that ownership rights and possession of property in dispute are with them and they raised construction thereon as owner or on the basis of any other valid and legal right. It is in these circumstances, it is evident that defendants were either trespassers or unauthorized occupants or licensees but had no right to continue to remain in possession thereof against real owner.


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