Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)Shambhu Singh vs Daljit Singh And Ors. on 17 February, 1916
3. Neither of the Courts have recorded a finding on the question as to whether or not the plaintiffs are the proprietors of the plot in dispute. The trial Court held that the suit was barred by Section 233(k), Land Revenue Act, and on that finding dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court has held that Section 233(k), Land Revenue Act, did not constitute a bar to the present claim of the plaintiffs. In my opinion the lower appellate Court was right in so holding. On the findings arrived at by the lower appellate Court, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiffs were not party to the partition proceedings in the course of which the plot in dispute was allotted to the defendant. Not being parties to the partition proceedings the plaintiffs are not bound by those proceedings. The matter is concluded by the Full Bench decision in Shambhu Singh v. Daljit Singh [1916] 38 All, 243.
Bijai Misir And Anr. vs Kali Prasad Misir And Ors. on 30 March, 1917
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of Tirbeni Sahai v. Jagannath [1908] 5 A.L.J. 725, and the case of Bijai Misir v. Kali Prasad Misir [1917] 39 All. 469. Those cases are distinguishable on the simple ground that the plaintiffs to the suits, giving rise to those appeals were parties to the partition proceedings, and as such were bound by the partition effected by the revenue Court. In the present case the suit of the plaintiffs was not barred by the provisions of Section 233(k), Land Revenue Act.
1