9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of revenue court to grant damages under Section 209 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. Possession of defendants with or without consent of the plaintiff. 3. Requirement of U. P. State as a necessary party in a suit under Section 209. Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of revenue court to grant damages The plaintiff claimed to be the Bhumidhar and filed a suit under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, seeking damages. The trial court and Assistant Collector found the plaintiff to be the Bhumidhar and decreed the suit for ejectment and damages. The defendants appealed, arguing that the revenue court lacked jurisdiction to award damages. However, the High Court held that the revenue court could grant damages under Section 209, even without specific mention in the original schedule. The subsequent amendment adding "and damages" was deemed clarificatory, and the court upheld the lower courts' decision to grant damages. Issue 2: Possession of defendants with or without consent The defendants contended that they were in possession with the plaintiff's consent, contrary to the lower courts' finding of trespass. The High Court noted that the question of possession with or without consent is a factual matter. After reviewing the evidence, the court upheld the lower courts' finding that the defendants were in possession with the plaintiff's consent, emphasizing that such factual determinations are not easily interfered with on appeal. Issue 3: Requirement of U. P. State as a necessary party The defendants argued that the U. P. State should have been a necessary party in the suit under Section 209, citing a later amendment making it mandatory. The High Court discussed the retrospective application of procedural amendments, emphasizing that changes should not prejudice established rights. The court differentiated between suits and appeals, stating that the amendment requiring the U. P. State's inclusion as a party applied to suits, not necessarily to appeals. The court concluded that while it is advisable to include the U. P. State in pending suits, disrupting valid decrees for impleading the State in appeals would be unjust. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the lower courts' decision. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the lower courts' decision, affirming the jurisdiction of the revenue court to grant damages under Section 209, the factual finding of possession with consent, and the discretionary inclusion of the U. P. State as a necessary party based on the stage of the legal proceedings.
|
