Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.57 seconds)
Documents citing Chander Dutt Sharma vs Prem Chand & Ors on 4 July, 2018

Smt. Susheela Devi vs Sh. Ram Charan Yadav on 13 November, 2019

In the case of Pushkar Singh Bisht (supra) and Chander Dutt Sharma (supra) it has been held that GPA sale documents do not constitute valid documents of title. That apart, in the case at hand, the claim that Manoj Kumar Yadav had purchased the suit property from his own funds is highly doubtful. There is no proof that plaintiff had purchased the suit property just about a week later from her own son Manoj in cash from her own funds.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R/O House No. 149 vs Sh. Nem Chand (Deceased) on 2 March, 2022

72. One Alok Sharma, Local commissioner in Suit No. 337/96 titled as Nem Chand Sharma vs Prem Chand and Ors. also came as witness. However, an application for the consolidation of evidence of witness in the present suit as well as suit no. 662/98 was moved and the same was allowed. Thereupon, the witness was discharged. However, this consolidated testimony is nowhere to be found in the file, hence not considered.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Rama Nayyar vs Sh. Mahesh Puri on 17 October, 2022

1956 was fallacious since with repeal of Section 23 of the Act, only bar to seek the partition had gone and once the disability was removed from the Statute, filing of suit was no longer barred. He has further placed reliance upon the judgments in Shanti Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State Electricity Board & Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 677, Craft Centre and Others v. The Koncherry Coir Factories, Cherthala, AIR 1991 Ker 83, Kanak Lata Jain & Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar Jain Ors, ILR (2012) IV Delhi 176, Krishna Pillai Rajasekharan Nair (dead) by LRs v. Padmanabha Pillai (dead) by LRs, (2004) 12 SCC 754, Smt. Dilboo (dead) by LRs & Ors. v. Smt. Dhanraji (dead) and Ors, dated 12.09.2000, Surinder Kaur v. Ram Narula & Ors., (2013) 205 DLT 179, Shankh Nath Tiwari and others v. Raj Nandan Tiwary and others, 2003 AIR Jhar R 686, Mrs. Rachna v. Mrs. Mauhihal Begum, DOD : 01.08.2017, Fakhruddin v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1326, Deputy Commissioner, Lucknow, in charge Court of Wards, Sissendi Estate v. Chandra Kishor Tewari and others, AIR 1947 Oudh 180, Ramji Dayawala and sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import, (1981) 1 SCC 80, Gangamma & Ors. v. Shivalingaiah, (2005) 9 SCC 359, Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and Anr., (2003) 8 SCC 745, Chander Dutt Sharma v. Prem Chand & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9903, Tukaram Kashinath Mandale v. Balkrishna & Balasaheb Sayajirao Thombare, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3787, Achuthan Pillai v. Marikar (Motors) Ltd, Trivandrum and others, AIR 1983 Ker 81, Madholal Sindu v. Asian Assurance Co Ltd and others, AIR 1954 Bom 305, and Bhagat Ram & Anr. v. Suresh & Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 35.
Delhi District Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vandana vs Bhupender Kumar And Anr on 27 October, 2025

40. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that a suit for possession may be filed on the basis of the title or the prior possession. To substantiate the same, it is also relevant to mention the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, titled as 'Chander Dutt Sharma vs Prem Chand, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9903, (para-20)' "20. As far as the contention of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, of the recital in the Agreement to Sell executed by respondents No. 4&5 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, of respondents No. 4&5 having put the appellant/plaintiff in possession of the property alone constituting a proof of delivery of possession, is concerned, no merit is found therein also for the following reasons:
Delhi District Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1