Skip to content


Badri Upadhia and ors. Vs. Dwarka Upadhia and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All416; 71Ind.Cas.559
AppellantBadri Upadhia and ors.
RespondentDwarka Upadhia and anr.
Cases Referred and Sarbjit Singh v. Raj Kumar Rai
Excerpt:
co-sharers - common parti land--cultivation by one co-sharer--other co-sharers, whether entitled to decree for joint possession--decree, form of. - - as the appeal has practically failed i allow the respondents their costs against the appellants......j.1. this is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration of title and recovery of joint possession by the plaintiffs as to two plots of land on the ground that the defendants co-sharers had wrongfully cultivated these plots of parti land and got them entered in their names. the defendants denied the plaintiffs' title. the findings of both the courts are that the plots of land in dispute were parti and that the defendants brought them first into cultivation in the year 1919. they accordingly decreed the plaintiffs' claim for declaration of title and joint possession. the defendants come here in second appeal and their sole ground of appeal is that a decree for joint possession should not have been given to the plaintiffs as it would lead to disputes in future. reliance.....
Judgment:

Gokul Prasad, J.

1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration of title and recovery of joint possession by the plaintiffs as to two plots of land on the ground that the defendants co-sharers had wrongfully cultivated these plots of parti land and got them entered in their names. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' title. The findings of both the Courts are that the plots of land in dispute were parti and that the defendants brought them first into cultivation in the year 1919. They accordingly decreed the plaintiffs' claim for declaration of title and joint possession. The defendants come here in second appeal and their sole ground of appeal is that a decree for joint possession should not have been given to the plaintiffs as it would lead to disputes in future. Reliance was placed before me on the cases of Jagar Nath Singh v. Jai Nath Singh 27 A. 88 : A.W.N. (1904) 194 : 1 A.L.J. 488 and Phani Singh v. Nawab Singh 28 A. 161 : A.W.N. (1905) 233. The latest pronouncement of this Court on this point is to be found in the cases of Bisheshar Singh v. Hanuman Singh 63 Ind. Cas. 802 : 19 A.L.J. 78 : 3 U.P.L.R. (A) 143 : 44 A. 1 : (1922) A.I.R. (A.) 314 and Sarbjit Singh v. Raj Kumar Rai 63 Ind. Cas. 806 : 19 A.L.J. 703 : 3 U.P.L.R. (A) 146 : 44 A. 5 : (1922) A.I.R. (A.) 162. In these later cases it has been decided that under such circumstances a joint decree can be passed and is not, against the law. Sitting, as a single Judge I am bound by the two cases above referred to. It has been very strongly urged before me that the giving of a decree for joint possession would result in putting a stop to new lands being brought under cultivation by co-sharers. I do not know that this would be quite the result because, a decree for. joint possession is, nothing more or less than a declaratory decree, and if a decree declaring the plaintiffs' title to the property can be passed; without any objection I do not see any, reason why, a decree for joint possession in favour of the same plaintiffs, should he opposed. If the one class of decree would cause the activity of bringing new lands into cultivation to ceases so would the other. The decrees of the lower Courts are, however, not very clear. I, therefore, discharge, those decrees and in lieu thereof pass the following decree. I declare that the plain-, tiffs are co-owners of the land in dispute tinder the cultivation of the defendants and, award them joint possession along With the defendants. As the appeal has practically failed I allow the respondents their costs against the appellants.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //