Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-24-1945
Reported in : AIR1946All34
Braund, J.1. The facts involved in this appeal are simple. The difficulty arises from the draftsmanship of the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act of 1934. Respondent 2, B. Sarda Pershad and his two sons, respondents 3 and 4 as landlords applied for the benefit of the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act, 1934. After taking the usual steps, the Special Judge of Etawah, who was a Special Judge of the first grade, on 1st September 1938 passed a decree under Section 14(7) of the Act finding the amounts due to the claimants against the debtors' estate and giving them simple money decrees for the amounts due to them.2. In these decrees, the learned Special Judge was concerned in particular with two claimants, one of whom is the present appellant, Bhatele Ramesh Chand, and the other, respondent 1, Dr. Shyam Lal. The matter need not be unduly complicated by tracing the history of the claims of these two gentlemen beyond observing that, in the events which had happened, the former, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-26-1945
Reported in : AIR1945All218
Bennett, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The suit was brought against him under Section 180, U.P. Tenancy Act, to eject him as a trespasser from a plot No. 174/2/1 of an area of 12 acres. This plot was allotted at a partition in 1940 to the respondent, Ram Sahai, and the appellant does not claim any title in the land. The land was treated as banjar in the partition, being so recorded in the revenue papers, but it appears that there are actually a number of trees upon it and it is in respect of these trees that the appellant claimed an interest. The respondent's suit was dismissed by the Munsif on the view that there were a very large number of trees on the plot and that, therefore, the plot is a grove and must have been such at the time of partition. The Civil Judge in first appeal considered the effect of Sections 118 and 119, Land Revenue Act, on which the Munsif had relied, but did not think that they helped the appellant. Section 118 provides that if in making a partition it is ...
Tag this Judgment!