Skip to content


Sahu Bisheshar Nath and anr. Vs. Abdul Wahid - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All382; 75Ind.Cas.672
AppellantSahu Bisheshar Nath and anr.
RespondentAbdul Wahid
Cases ReferredJai Chand v. Girwar Singh
Excerpt:
second appeal - finding of fact--adverse possession, finding on question of. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled].1. this was a suit for possession of a house situated in the town of bijnor of which the plaintiff is zemindar. the plaintiff's' case was that the house was occupied by the defendant's father as tenant.2. the defendant's case was that his father occupied it adversely.3. the lower appellate court finds that the defendant's father occupied the house adversely more than twelve years before the suit. this finding is fatal to the appeal. the ruling; in jai chand v. girwar singh 52 ind. cas. 366, 41 a. 669 : 17 a.l.j. 814 which has been referred to, does not apply to the facts of this case. the appeal fails and we accordingly dismiss it. we make no order as to costs as the respondent is not represented.
Judgment:

1. This was a suit for possession of a house situated in the town of Bijnor of which the plaintiff is zemindar. The plaintiff's' case was that the house was occupied by the defendant's father as tenant.

2. The defendant's case was that his father occupied it adversely.

3. The lower Appellate Court finds that the defendant's father occupied the house adversely more than twelve years before the suit. This finding is fatal to the appeal. The ruling; in Jai Chand v. Girwar Singh 52 Ind. Cas. 366, 41 A. 669 : 17 A.L.J. 814 which has been referred to, does not apply to the facts of this case. The appeal fails and we accordingly dismiss it. We make no order as to costs as the respondent is not represented.


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