Appellant appealed against original suit and first appeal dismissal regarding claim to land possession under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Bench upheld lower courts' finding that appellants failed to prove pre-Act possession.
Appeal dismissed with no specific orders mentioned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 388 of 2018
Appellant :- Malkha And 3 Others Respondent :- Indrajeet And 18 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anup Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Anup Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants.
This appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. has been filed by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 15.02.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.18, Deoria in Civil Appeal No.95 of 2009, Malkhan and others Vs. Indrajeet and others arising out of the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.22, Deoria in original Suit No.1348 of 1997.
Plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction claiming that they be not evicted from land contained in Survey No.500 which was prior to 'Chakbandi' recorded as 585 from the portion which is marked as A.B.C.D. in the suit map. It is plaintiff's contention that disputed site is surrounded by 'Banjer' land and plaintiff being a landless labourer, on partition in the village property when their ancestral house became too inconvenient, they had established their 'Gotha' on the disputed land and had planted certain trees. They are tying their animals and are spending most of their time at the said place.
However, learned Trial Court as well as the first appellate court found that plaintiff through any evidence has failed to establish that they are in possession of the disputed land prior to coming into force of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act,1950 so to give any benefit of Section 9 of the said Act.
On the contrary, it has been found that name of the defendantIndrajeet has been recorded on the suit land and even in the Commissioner Report, it is mentioned that there are three nonresidential hutments on Survey No.500. This Report of the Commissioner has never been put to challenge and, therefore finding that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit land prior to promulgation of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act, suit as well as first appeal have been dismissed.
After going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, therefore, appeal fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.2.2020 Ashutosh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding lack of prior possession under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 were illegal or irregular.
Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit for mandatory injunction as the plaintiffs failed to prove possession prior to the Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Malkha And 3 Others
Indrajeet And 18 Others
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
