Skip to content


Jaswant Singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberU.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (1 of 1961)
Judge
Reported in(1982)3SCC481
ActsU.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (1 of 1961) - Section 5
AppellantJaswant Singh and ors.
RespondentState of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Excerpt:
- [ r.b. mishra and; s. murtaza fazal ali, jj.] -- ceiling on land — u.p. imposition of ceiling on land holdings act, 1960 (1 of 1961) — section 5 — two sale deeds accepted but a third one in respect of the same land by the same vendor not accepted — no distinctive feature of the third sale shown — matter remanded to prescribed authority to reconsider the question on further evidence -- in respect of those sale deeds, the matter had been remitted to the prescribed authority. no distinctive feature of the sale deed in question has been furnished before us. we therefore remit this case to the prescribed authority......prescribed authority and affirmed by the district judge and the high court although two registered sale deeds in respect of the same land and by the same vendor had been accepted by the prescribed authority as transactions executed in good faith and for adequate consideration. in respect of those sale deeds, the matter had been remitted to the prescribed authority. if the land is the same and the vendor was also the same, there is a certain amount of inconsistency in the finding of the authorities concerned that while the two sale deeds are genuine and for adequate consideration, the third one is not. no distinctive feature of the sale deed in question has been furnished before us. we therefore remit this case to the prescribed authority. the prescribed authority will take further.....
Judgment:

R.B. Mishra and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.

1. Heard counsel for the parties. In the instant case, the only plea which has been pressed before us is that the sale deed in question has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority and affirmed by the District Judge and the High Court although two registered sale deeds in respect of the same land and by the same vendor had been accepted by the Prescribed Authority as transactions executed in good faith and for adequate consideration. In respect of those sale deeds, the matter had been remitted to the Prescribed Authority. If the land is the same and the vendor was also the same, there is a certain amount of inconsistency in the finding of the authorities concerned that while the two sale deeds are genuine and for adequate consideration, the third one is not. No distinctive feature of the sale deed in question has been furnished before us. We therefore remit this case to the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority will take further evidence of the parties as may be adduced before him and reconsider the question whether or not the sale deed in question along with the other two sale deeds which have been held to be genuine and for adequate consideration, was executed in good faith and for adequate consideration. The petitioner will appear before the Prescribed Authority on April 10, 1981.


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