Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.69 seconds)

Narendra Prasad Singh vs Ram Ashish Singh & Ors on 4 July, 2018

26. Relying on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S Rishi Trade Centre Vs. Collector of Customs and others (AIR 1997 SC 1786), Mr. Arora contends that a property of a lady, even if she is not in actual physical possession, but has got the right to possess, will be deemed to be her stridhan and she would be the owner of the said property, for all purposes. He has then relied on Section 4 of the Benami Patna High Court SA No.229 of 2002 dt. 04-07-2018 20/35 Transactions (Prohibitions) Act, 1988 to contend that no suit can be filed for seeking a relief that the property, even though standing in the name of another, is in fact, the property of the plaintiff. Since the suit was filed in the year 1990, after coming into force of the said Act, the institution of the suit itself was barred in view of the said provision of law.
Patna High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - C S Singh - Full Document

Narendra Prasad Singh vs Ram Ashish Singh & Ors on 4 July, 2018

26. Relying on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S Rishi Trade Centre Vs. Collector of Customs and others (AIR 1997 SC 1786), Mr. Arora contends that a property of a lady, even if she is not in actual physical possession, but has got the right to possess, will be deemed to be her stridhan and she would be the owner of the said property, for all purposes. He has then relied on Section 4 of the Benami Patna High Court SA No.229 of 2002 dt. 04-07-2018 20/35 Transactions (Prohibitions) Act, 1988 to contend that no suit can be filed for seeking a relief that the property, even though standing in the name of another, is in fact, the property of the plaintiff. Since the suit was filed in the year 1990, after coming into force of the said Act, the institution of the suit itself was barred in view of the said provision of law.
Patna High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - C S Singh - Full Document
1