Skip to content


Chattar Singh and ors. Vs. Thakur Prasad Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 57 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1975SC1499; (1975)4SCC457; 1975(7)LC255(SC)
ActsU.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 4, 5(2)(a)
AppellantChattar Singh and ors.
RespondentThakur Prasad Singh
Excerpt:
- [ a.c. gupta,; r.s. sarkaria and; v.r. krishna iyer, jj.] - abatement and revival — abatement at appellate stage — statutory abatement — sections 5(2)(a) and 4 of the u.p. consolidation of holdings act, 1953 (as amended by u.p. act 21 of 1966) -- during the pendency of the appeal in this court, a notification has been issued under section 4 of the act. this court has in ram adhar singh v. ramroop singh1 held that even appeals pending before this court will abate consequent on the above statutory provision. parties will bear their costs throughout......in cmp no. 19 of 1975 for passing an order of holdings act. counsel for the respondent faced with the decision of this court and the clear statutory provision agrees that the stand taken by the appellants is correct. we therefore hold that the suit and the appeal stand abated. it is open to the parties to work out their rights before the appropriate consolidation authorities. with this direction, the appeal is disposed of as abated. parties will bear their costs throughout.
Judgment:

V.R. KRISHNA IYER, J.

1. The appeal relates to a suit and later stage thereof certain remedies were sought under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as amended by U.P. Act 21 of 1966. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, a notification has been issued under Section 4 of the Act. By virtue of the operation of Section 5(2)(a) of the said Act, there is a statutory abatement of the suit and other proceedings pending therefrom. This Court has in Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh1 held that even appeals pending before this Court will abate consequent on the above statutory provision. The appellants have moved in CMP No. 19 of 1975 for passing an order of Holdings Act. Counsel for the respondent faced with the decision of this Court and the clear statutory provision agrees that the stand taken by the appellants is correct. We therefore hold that the suit and the appeal stand abated. It is open to the parties to work out their rights before the appropriate consolidation authorities. With this direction, the appeal is disposed of as abated. Parties will bear their costs throughout.


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