Ram Bachan and 2 Others v. Arvind and 2 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
A single order regarding a fresh appeal on the bar of limitation. The Bench listed the case for fresh hearing, directed counsel to clarify legal authorities on whether Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act bar applies to suits challenging registered sale deeds due to fraud or impersonation.
What the court decided
Court No. - 36
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 941 of 2024
Appellant :- Ram Bachan And 2 Others Respondent :- Arvind And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shailendra Kumar Yadav,Suresh Chandra Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Shrivastav
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
- Vakalatnama filed by Shri Ashish Kumar Shrivastav, Ms. Bhavana Jaiswal and Shri Hare Ram on behalf of respondents is taken on record.
- One of the issues involved in this case is as to whether the suit in question was barred by Section 49 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
- Both the learned counsel shall bring authorities on the aspect as to whether such bar can be applied in a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed when it is challenged on the ground of fraud/impersonation/undue influence etc.
- Put up as fresh in first week of January, 2025 before the appropriate Bench.
- When the case is listed next, the names of Shri Ashish Kumar Shrivastav (A/A 1523/2023), Ms. Bhavana Jaiswal (A/B 0839/2021) and Shri Hare Ram (A/H 0183/2012) shall be shown as counsel for the respondents in the cause list as well as data base record.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed challeneged on grounds of fraud/impersonation/undue influence is barred by Section 49 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ram Bachan And 2 Others
- respondent
Arvind And 2 Others
Coram
Kshitij Shailendra
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- SAPL/941/2024
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court