Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing Surjit Singh & Ors vs Ekta Gulati & Ors on 16 August, 2012

Mr. Rajesh Grover vs Mrs. Razia Grover on 20 April, 2023

18.1 As already observed above, there is no title vesting in the parties which can be the basis on which partition can be granted. However, what is also bearing upon the mind of this Court is that whether it would be sufficient to therefore, non suit the plaintiffs considering that matter has been tirelessly pursued for 14 years and there is no third party asserting any right over the suit property. Pursuant to the Hira Mahal Agreement (Ex. P1 and Ex. D1), the buyers were handed possession of the suit property (though it is disputed by the defendants that the possession was only given to Satish). Hence, there is some possessory right which flowed from the agreement and such possessory rights can therefore be considered for partition on the grounds of justice and equity. Reliance is placed upon Surjit Singh and Ors. Vs. Ekta Gulati and Ors RFA 166/2012 & CM No. 6147/2012 decided on 16.08.2012 by Delhi High Court, Shyam Behari & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan & Ors 2013 (10) AD 236, CS No. 57652/2016 Rajesh Grover vs. Razia Grover Pages 26 of 37 Pathukutty and Anr Vs. Aisakutty & Ors SA no. 642/2000 decided on 19.03.2015 by High Court of Kerala which, recognize that possessory right is available for partition and can be partitioned unless and until parties prove a better title suggesting impartibility of a property.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hira Lal/Jawahar Lal vs Shiv Varan on 24 May, 2024

Again, possession of water bills, house tax receipt in the name of plaintiff number 1 before the year 2006 have also not been disputed/rebutted by defendant number 1. It is a trite law that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a case for grant of such declaration. Thus, in view of above discussion it can be safely summed up that the burden of proof lying upon the plaintiffs in light/view of balance of probabilities have been well discharged by them. Further, possessory rights are a facet of different kinds of rights over immovable property and can be subject matter of partition. Reliance is placed upon Surjit Singh & Ors. v Ekta Gulati & Ors., RFA No. 166/2012, decided on 16.08.2012 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Accordingly, as burden of proof discharged by plaintiffs onus then shifts up on the defendants.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Motia Rani vs Gurbaksh Singh And Ors on 16 March, 2026

21. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the precedent laid down in the case of Surjit Singh (supra). But, with utmost respect, the Court is of the view that the facts and circumstances of the said case were peculiar in nature and are distinguishable from the present case. In the present case, the concerned department/lessor has already conveyed to D-1 and thereby, to the legal heirs of Smt. Karmawali that 'legal heirs of the attorney cannot acquire the property of lessee died intestate in succession'. Surprisingly, neither D-1 nor plaintiff nor other legal heirs of Smt. Karmawali had ever challenged the said decision of the concerned department till date. The plaintiff did not implead the concerned department in the array of parties to provide it a chance to clarify or defend its position as lessor in this regard. Accordingly, the issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiff.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indira vs Poonam on 7 June, 2023

It has been time and again observed by the Hon'ble Superior Courts that even a license with respect to immovable property,once continue after the demise of licensee, is valuable property even if not immovable property and is partible among the legal heirs of the licensee. Also, the judgment in a Civil Suit is to be written on findings on issues framed in the suit and these issues which in turn arise from pleadings of the parties. It was never the plea of the defendant that suit property is not partible or that plaintiff is not one of the legal heirs of Late Hari Om. Reliance is placed upon Shyam Behari vs. Ram Kishan, 2013 SCC online Del 4110, Surjit Singh vs. Ekta Gulati 2012 SCC online Del 4233 and Gopi Chand vs. Geeta Devi & Ors., 2020 SCC online Delhi 2420. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that as per section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, both plaintiff and defendant being daughter and daughter-in-law respectively of Late Hari Om are entitled for half shares each, being class-I legal heirs. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and defendant.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shobh Raj Arora vs Santosh And Ors on 28 February, 2024

2024.02.28 17:05:01 +0530 themselves admitted in the written statement that Late Pokhar Das was the owner of the suit property and therefore, they are estopped from raising the aforesaid issue. Moreover the Plaintiff has proven the registered relinquishment deed and the official record of the mutation, wherein the Plaintiff and his brother is recorded as the joint owners of the suit property. The parties are admittedly in possession of the suit property since 1961. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in, "Surjit Singh vs. Ekta Gulati (16.08.2012): RFA 166/2012: Manu/DE/4037/2012", that even the possessory rights, in the immovable properties, inherited by the parties from a common ancestor can become subject matter of partition. Therefore, the nature of rights, being asserted by the parties in the present suit, entitles the Plaintiff to seek partition of the same. Moreover, the registered relinquishment deed, the official record of mutation and property tax, the possession, read alongwith the admission of the Defendants of ownership of Late Pokhar Das makes out the case of the suit property being jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, deriving their antecedents title from the common ancestor. The Plaintiff has also sought declaration of ownership of the suit property.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Titu vs Narender Sharma on 18 October, 2023

It has been time and again observed by the Hon'ble Superior Courts that even a license with respect to immovable property,once continue after the demise of licensee, is valuable property even if not immovable property and is partible among the legal heirs of the licensee. Also, the judgment in a Civil Suit is to be written on findings on issues framed in the suit and these issues which in turn arise from pleadings of the parties. It was never the plea of the defendant that suit property is not partible or that plaintiff is not one of the legal heirs of Late Chander Bhan and Late Natiya Devi. Reliance is placed upon Shyam Behari vs. Ram Kishan, 2013 SCC online Del 4110, Surjit Singh vs. Ekta Gulati 2012 SCC online Del 4233 and Gopi Chand vs. Geeta Devi & Ors., 2020 SCC online Delhi 2420.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh Prem Parkash vs Sh Bhupender Kumar And Anr on 31 July, 2024

It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in, "Surjit Singh vs. Ekta Gulati (16.08.2012): RFA 166/2012: Manu/DE/4037/2012", that even the possessory rights, in the immovable properties, inherited by the parties from a common ancestor can become subject matter of partition. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree of partition with regard to the rights of late Balwanti Devi in the property no. F-473, Madipur, J. J. Colony, Delhi- 110063 admeasuring 20 sq. yards, in 1/3rd share.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next