GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

No implied or express bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court

LinkedIn


Court :
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Brief :
The present appeal has been preferred by Defendant No. 4, against the concurrent findings of three Courts arising out of a suit for permanent injunction.

Citation :
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8971 OF 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8971 OF 2010

KIRPA RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SURENDRA DEO GAUR & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by Defendant No. 4, against the concurrent findings of three Courts arising out of a suit for permanent injunction.

2. The plaintiffs, now represented as respondent Nos. 1 and 2, filed a suit for permanent injunction on 31.7.1971 claiming that Khasra No. 238 measuring 4 Bighas 3 Biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Basai Darapur, Delhi is owned and possessed by them. Earlier, the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration challenging the vesting of the said land in Gaon Sabha in a suit filed on 20.7.1959. The said suit was decreed on 7.10.1960 holding that the plaintiffs are owners and Bhumidars of land comprising in Khasra No. 238. The Union of India had filed an application under Section 161-B of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 19541 for setting aside the said decree dated 7.10.1960 but such application was dismissed by Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi on 24.5.1968.

3. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant No. 1 claimed that Khasra No. 238 is part of the land allotted to it. The suit for permanent injunction was thus filed by the plaintiffs apprehending threat to their possession of land comprising Khasra No. 238, Village Basai Darapur, Delhi against defendant No. 1 i.e. The Refugees’ Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., its President – defendant No. 2, Secretary – defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 4, Kirpa Ram, predecessor in interest of the present appellants. Two separate sets of written statements were filed before the Court, one by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and another by defendant No. 4. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 raised preliminary objection that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court relating to Bhumidari land is barred under Section 85 of the Reforms Act. It was stated that defendant No. 4 threatened to encroach upon the land in the Society comprising of Khasra No. 1273 which led to proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Such proceedings have nothing to do with land comprising in Khasra No. 238.

To know more in details find the attachment file

 

Guest
on 24 November 2020
Published in LAW
Views : 19
downloaded 8 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags