Skip to content


Kuldip Chaube and anr. Vs. Jagnandan Chaube and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All363; 71Ind.Cas.299
AppellantKuldip Chaube and anr.
RespondentJagnandan Chaube and anr.
Excerpt:
joint holding - one co-sharer in possession of specific plot of holding--possession of plot wrongfully taken by another co-sharer--suit for exclusive possession--partition in revenue courts, whether necessary. - .....of the plaintiffs, but as it formed part of a joint khata the plaintiffs were entitled to a joint possession and decreed the claim for joint possession.3. on appeal the learned district judge came to the conclusion that the land had been in possession of the plaintiffs and their father for 19 years and was their khudkasht. on this finding he decreed the appeal and gave the plaintiffs a decree for exclusive possession as prayed. the defendants come here in second appeal and say that the sole remedy of the plaintiffs was to have a partition made by the revenue courts as co-sharers. i do not see why the plaintiffs should, not be given a decree for exclusive possession when the defendants have been found to have wrongfully dispossessed. them and taken exclusive possession of the.....
Judgment:

Gokul Prasad, J.

1. This was a suit by the plaintiffs for exclusive possession of plot No. 248 which they alleged was their khudkasht land and from which the defendants had wrongfully ejected them. The defendants pleaded that the land belonged to a joint khata and the plaintiffs had wrongfully brought the suit for exclusive possession.

2. The first Court held that the land was not the khudkasht of the plaintiffs, but as it formed part of a joint khata the plaintiffs were entitled to a joint possession and decreed the claim for joint possession.

3. On appeal the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the land had been in possession of the plaintiffs and their father for 19 years and was their khudkasht. On this finding he decreed the appeal and gave the plaintiffs a decree for exclusive possession as prayed. The defendants come here in second appeal and say that the sole remedy of the plaintiffs was to have a partition made by the Revenue Courts as co-sharers. I do not see why the plaintiffs should, not be given a decree for exclusive possession when the defendants have been found to have wrongfully dispossessed. them and taken exclusive possession of the property. If the defendants had, in the first instance, applied for partition that would have been all right and they would then have got the rights of the parties adjusted but the defendants should not, by taking the law into their own hands and wrongfully dispossessing the plaintiffs, be allowed to compel the plaintiffs to sue for partition in the Revenue Courts. There is no force in this appeal. I, therefore, dismiss it with costs.


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