REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

LAKSHMI DUTT Appellant

V/S

GOPAL DUTT Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PROSUNNO KUMARI DEBYA V. GOLAB CHAND BABOO [REFERRED TO]
RAJA OF PALGHAT V. RAMAN UNNI [REFERRED TO]
VENKATA LAGANNADHA V. VEERABADRAYYA [REFERRED TO]
MALAYANDI APPAYASAMI NAICKER V. MIDNAPORE ZAMINDARY CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
SUB-RAMANIA GURUKKAL V. AMMAKANNU ANIMALI [REFERRED TO]
MIDNAPORE ZAMINDARI CO. LTD. V. MALAYANDI APPAYASAMI NAICKER [REFERRED TO]
ADINARAYANA V. APPAN SRIRANGACHARIAR [REFERRED TO]
RAMALINGAM V. VEERABHADRADU [REFERRED TO]
RAJAGOPALA NAIDU V. RAMASUBRAMANIA AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
SWAMIRAO SHRINIWAS V. BHIMABAI PADPPA [REFERRED TO]
TUKA LAKHU V. GANU VITHU [REFERRED TO]
GURDWARA COMMITTEE V. KARAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SKINNER V. NAUNIHAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GULABBHAI V. BHAGVAN KESUR [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMED ISAK SAHEB VS. NAJARUDDIN SHAMANSAHEB MULLA [REFERRED TO]
JAINT SINGH VS. NAND RAM [REFERRED TO]
MADHAVRAO VAMAN VS. RAGHUNATH VENKATESH [REFERRED TO]
SAJIB MIAN VS. LANGO URAON [REFERRED TO]
GAJE SINGH VS. MTUCHHABA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the plaintiff's appeal. The trial Court decreed the suit but the lower appellate Court dismissed it on. the ground of limitation.

(2.) THE brief facts are these: The plaintiff was appointed a Malguzar or Padhar of the Village Adhyali in the district of Almora in 1960. Formerly one Bal Mukund Sah was the Malguzar of the said village and he died in 1954. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to the possession of the land in dis pute on the ground that the said land was Padhanchari land attached to the office of Malguzar. Formerly, the land was held by Bal Mukund as the Malguzar and subsequ ently, the plaintiff on his appointment to the said office became entitled to the same. The defendants-respondents were alleged to have been inducted into possession by Bal Mukund and to have been in permissive possession from the latter. With his appointment as the Malguzar in 1960, the plaintiff claimed to have become entitled to the possession of the land in dispute but as the defendants denied to part with possession, therefore, they were liable to be dispossessed and were also liable to pay damages for illegal occupation.

(3.) THE I Court decreed the suit on the basis of the following findings :-

Click here to view full judgment.

LAKSHMI DUTT Vs. GOPAL DUTT

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address