MURLI SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Lok Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. H.M. Raturi, the learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no. 1 and Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3.

(2.) ONE Murli Singh purchased a property in the year 1947. According to him, he had invested his own money, but the land was purchased in the name of himself, i.e., Murli Singh, Jhalli Singh and Amar Singh. It is alleged by Murli Singh that the names of Jhalli Singh and Amar Singh were Benami names. Jhalli Singh died in the year 1960 leaving behind his widow. It is alleged that soon after Jhalli Singh's death, the widow left the matrimonial home and also wrote a document relinquishing her rights in the property in question in favour of Murli Singh. Murli Singh contends that since then he has been in exclusive possession. Quite apart from the fact that Murli Singh was the ostensible owner, he had also perfected his right by adverse possession.

(3.) THE Assistant Collector, by an order dated 17th February, 1991, decreed the suit of Smt. Balmati and dismissed the suit for declaration of the petitioners. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was allowed and the order of the Assistant Collector was set aside. The appellate court held that the petitioner was in exclusive possession and that Smt. Balmati had relinquished her rights in favour of the petitioner. Smt. Balmati, being aggrieved by the appellate order, filed a second appeal, which was allowed and the order of the appellate court was set aside and the order of the Assistant Collector was affirmed. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition questioning the order of the second appellate court.