Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.31 seconds)The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
Section 31 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 229B in The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Chandrika Misir & Anr vs Bhaiya Lal on 31 July, 1973
In this connection reference may be made to the case of Chandrika Misir v. Bhaiya Lal, 1973 RD 498. The said case arose out of suit for injunction and in the alternative for possession in respect of agricultural land. It was held that in view of Schedule II to the Act, the relief for possession could be granted by the revenue court only and Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act ousted the jurisdiction of civil court. In the said case though no observation in respect of relief for injunction has been specifically made out, but from the judgment the picture is very clear. The finding of the subordinate court was that the plaintiff was out of possession on the basis of allegations which were not true and which he failed to establish merely because relief for Injunction was claimed. The Civil Court would have no Jurisdiction as the case first involved declaration of right as tenure-holder which could be granted by the revenue court only and thereafter relief could have been granted only if he was held to be tenure-holder by succession.
Ram Awalamb And Ors. vs Jata Shankar And Ors. on 18 September, 1968
15. So far as the arguments that on the basis of sale-deed dated 5.5.1997, the name of the petitioner has been recorded over plots 488, 487 and 494, which are subject-matter of sale-deed and he is in possession over it and the suit, is essentially a suit for declaration of title and possession over agricultural land, is concerned, title of the plaintiff is admitted on the date of sale-deed. In case sale-deed is canceled, there will be no requirement for declaration of the title of the plaintiff. Relief for ejectment of the petitioner and possession of the plaintiff being an ancillary relief can be granted by Civil Court also as held by this Court in Ram Awalamb's case (supra). The case law relied by the counsel for the petitioner, are applicable where declaration of title would be necessary for grant of relief to the plaintiff, while in this case, as stated above, title of the plaintiff on the date of sale-deed is admitted and cancellation of sale-deed is main relief.
Shri Ram And Another vs Ist Addl. Distt. Judge & Ors on 7 February, 2001
25. The question before this Court was whether a recorded tenure-holder having prima facie title in his favour and in possession was required to file a suit in the Revenue Court, or where the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit seeking relief of cancellation of a void document. Upholding the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit, a two-Judge Bench of this Court differentiated between a recorded tenure-holder, and an unrecorded tenure-holder with the following observations: (Ram case [Ram v. Addl. District Judge, (2001) 3 SCC 24] , SCC p. 28, para 7)
"7. ... we are of the opinion that where a recorded tenure-holder having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the civil court for cancellation of sale deed having been obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the Revenue Court, the reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure-holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. The position would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure-holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the Revenue Court, as the sale deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration and possession."
Kamla Prasad & Ors vs Sri Krishna Kant Pathak & Ors on 9 February, 2007
In Kamla Prasad v. Kishna Kant Pathak, (2007) 4 SCC 213 the Apex Court had held as under: