Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.15 seconds)
Documents citing Yanala Malleshwari And Ors. vs Ananthula Sayamma And Ors. on 24 October, 2006

Hayath Mohiddin vs Mohammad Murthaja @ Dadesaheb Since ... on 7 June, 2010

18. The-prayer claimed in the plaint reveals that the plaintiffs have sought for a declaration 30 a%fi Igjifiw that the Sale Deed dated 17.02.1977 is void and does not bind the interest of the plaintiffs in the said property: When the plaintiffs have pre§e§§flfofg:%g specific relief of declaration, 3"theE~pdecisionfl reported in AIR 1992 Delhi 113 does not apply as it was heid by the.High Court in the said suit that theh relief of declaration is Lnct fiéfessérpg Even otherwise, considering for the timegbeing that the relief of declaration is reagndgnrgani if this suit is to be treeted as a suit"for bore injunction, the plaintiffs hnfe te_pr§y§ ggéig lawful possession of the suit'Pré§prtffon the date of the suit. Even as regardewcancelietion as the document, the High Court of AndhraVv"e.E_?raVdeshV?in,:_t'he decision reported in AIR _ 2oo7_ifidnra firadeshg57 (rs) [Yanala Malleshwari vs. A*.Smt, Ananthula Sayamma} held that in case if there is "a .Wiil, fthe owner of the property can seek i _cancellation of the Deed by registering cancellation i"ufieed. In my opinion, as there was a transfer of an 4"_invalid title, the question of cancellation also i"H does not arise. It is the finding of the Courts ibelow that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property and that it is the lat defendant who is in possession and in the circumstances, when 0/--
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1