KISHORI LAL versus BIRDHI LAL & ORS.

KISHORI LAL versus BIRDHI LAL & ORS.

Birdhi Lal was not a trespasser as essential conditions under s. 5(44) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act were not fulfilled; evidence established he was a tenant and not shown to have acted without authority. The High Court correctly quashed the contrary findings of the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board. Alternative plea under s. 180 lacked necessary averments and proof, thus was not maintainable.

Parties
Appellant: Kishori Lal; Respondent No. 1: Birdhi Lal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 March 1976
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment in Writ Petition Under Article 226
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 226 Scope, Revenue Authority Findings, Tenancy Definition, Trespass, Ejectment Under Rajasthan Tenancy Act
Constitutional Law Tenancy Law Land Law Article 226 Scope Revenue Authority Findings Tenancy Definition Trespass Ejectment Under Rajasthan Tenancy Act

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kishori Lal

Appellant

Birdhi Lal

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment in Writ Petition Under Article 226

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 226 with concurrent findings of Revenue authorities on status of respondent as trespasser or tenant
  2. 2 Whether essential ingredients for eviction of a trespasser under s. 5(44) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 were fulfilled
  3. 3 Whether alternative relief under s. 180 of the Act was available in the absence of essential averments and proof

Ratio Decidendi

Birdhi Lal was not a trespasser as essential conditions under s. 5(44) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act were not fulfilled; evidence established he was a tenant and not shown to have acted without authority. The High Court correctly quashed the contrary findings of the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board. Alternative plea under s. 180 lacked necessary averments and proof, thus was not maintainable.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.