Skip to content


Puran and anr. Vs. Niranjan Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal Nos. 1516 of 1970 and 19 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1980SC1345; (1980)4SCC87; 1980(12)LC547(SC)
AppellantPuran and anr.;malkhan Singh and anr.
RespondentNiranjan Singh and ors.;board of Revenue and ors.
Excerpt:
.....offence proved by witnesses -dying declaration found to be reliable -held, it is not a case which attracts provisions of section 304, part ii or section 326. conviction of accused under section 302 is not liable to be interfered with. - yogeshwar prasad raised a question of limitation which had also been decided against him by the revenue court and fully endorsed by the single judge who has given cogent reasons. and in all three of the impugned judgments the revenue courts have clearly held that niranjansingh remained in possession throughout until the land was attached, and the malkhan singh and pooran singh did not get possession until the section 145 case was decided in their favour on 6-3-1953. 3. this was not a case in which the high court ought to have given the certificate of...............
Judgment:

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. We have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment not only of the Single Judge of the High Court but also of almost seven Courts namely the Revenue Courts as wall as the Consolidation Courts who have held that the respondent was the bhoomidar.

2. Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad raised a question of limitation which had also been decided against him by the Revenue Court and fully endorsed by the Single Judge who has given cogent reasons. The Single Judge has observed as follows:

and in all three of the impugned judgments the revenue Courts have clearly held that Niranjansingh remained in possession throughout until the land was attached, and the Malkhan Singh and Pooran Singh did not get possession until the Section 145 case was decided in their favour on 6-3-1953.

3. This was not a case in which the High Court ought to have given the certificate of fitness for appeal in this Court. There is no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.


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