BHINKA AND OTHERS versus CHARAN SINGH

BHINKA AND OTHERS versus CHARAN SINGH

Possession obtained or retained pursuant to a provisional Magistrate's order under s. 145 CrPC does not amount to lawful title or consented tenancy; the Revenue Court has jurisdiction to eject persons in such possession under s. 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, and the order under s. 145 cannot be pleaded as a defence to an ejectment suit.

Parties
Appellants: Bhinka and Others; Respondent: Charan Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 April 1959
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals by Special Leave / Appeal From Order of U.p. Board of Revenue in Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Revenue Court, Ejectment Proceedings, Effect of S. 145 Cr PC Orders, Interpretation of U.p. Tenancy Act S. 180
Agricultural Tenancy Law Jurisdiction of Revenue Court Ejectment Proceedings Effect of S. 145 Cr PC Orders Interpretation of U.p. Tenancy Act S. 180

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhinka and Others

Appellants

Charan Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals by Special Leave / Appeal From Order of U.p. Board of Revenue in Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order under s. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides a valid defence to a suit for ejectment under s. 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939
  2. 2 Whether the Revenue Court had jurisdiction to try the suits for ejectment
  3. 3 Whether the appellants were admitted as hereditary tenants

Ratio Decidendi

Possession obtained or retained pursuant to a provisional Magistrate's order under s. 145 CrPC does not amount to lawful title or consented tenancy; the Revenue Court has jurisdiction to eject persons in such possession under s. 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, and the order under s. 145 cannot be pleaded as a defence to an ejectment suit.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants to pay costs to the respondent.