SONAWATI & ORS. versus SRI RAM & ANR.

SONAWATI & ORS. versus SRI RAM & ANR.

Entries relied upon by Pritam Singh did not fulfill requirements of s. 20(b) of Act 1 of 1951; he was not shown as Kabiz or Sahil; evidence shows entry was surreptitious. Cultivatory possession under s. 3 of Act 31 of 1952 must be lawful; mere forcible occupation is not sufficient. High Court was not bound by...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Sonawati & Ors.; Respondent: Sri Ram & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 September 1967
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Decree Dated November 6, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 3755 of 1958
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
U.p. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Adhivasi Rights, Cultivatory Possession, Civil and Revenue Court Jurisdiction
Land Law Civil Procedure U.p. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act Adhivasi Rights Cultivatory Possession Civil and Revenue Court Jurisdiction

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sonawati & Ors.

Appellant

Sri Ram & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Decree Dated November 6, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 3755 of 1958

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether entry as occupant in khasra of 1356 Fasli entitles Pritam Singh to adhivasi rights under s. 20(b) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether Pritam Singh was in 'cultivatory possession' as per s. 3 of U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952
  3. 3 Whether the High Court was bound by findings of the first Appellate Court

Ratio Decidendi

Entries relied upon by Pritam Singh did not fulfill requirements of s. 20(b) of Act 1 of 1951; he was not shown as Kabiz or Sahil; evidence shows entry was surreptitious. Cultivatory possession under s. 3 of Act 31 of 1952 must be lawful; mere forcible occupation is not sufficient. High Court was not bound by Appellate Court findings which ignored important evidence. High Court was right in granting decree for possession after allowing amendment of plaint.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Decree for possession granted to plaintiffs after amendment of plaint
  • Costs awarded to respondents