Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing Madalsa Sood vs Maunicka Makkar & Anr. on 10 December, 2021

Mubina Begum vs Shaista @ Farida on 12 February, 2024

10. Reverting back to the present case, the ownership of the plaintiff has not been denied by the defendant. However, it is averred that the defendant's husband has constructed the floor of the property in possession of the defendant. Even if, this fact is admitted for the sake of arguments, still it does not confer any ownership right over the roof floor. At most, the defendant's husband can claim the money spent in the construction of the floor. The amount spent in construction does not turn the property as the joint family property unless it has been specifically put into the pool of the joint family. There are no such averments in the written statement that the property was the joint family property. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Madalsa Sood Vs. Maunicka Makkar & Anr (supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Vanitha Vs. Deputi Commissioner, Bengaluru urban District and others (supra), the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of possession in respect of the suit property as shown in the site plan i.e. Annexure- P8 is decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Usha Luthra vs Smt. Shweta Luthra on 31 October, 2022

"124. Drawing the analogy from the above case, we are of the opinion that the expression "save in accordance with the procedure established by law" in Sec. 17(2) of the 2005 Act contemplates the proceedings in the court of competent jurisdiction. Thus suit for mandatory and permanent injunction/ eviction or possession by the owner of the property is maintainable before a competent Court. We may further notice that in Sub Sec. (2) the injunction is (shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household.... Save in accordance with the procedure established by law." Thus, the provision itself contemplates adopting of any procedure established by law by the respondent for eviction or exclusion of the aggrieved person from the shared household. Thus, in appropriate case, the competent court can decide the claim in a properly instituted suit by the owner as to whether the woman need to be excluded or evicted from the shared household. One most common example for eviction and exclusion may be when the aggrieved person is provided same level of alternate accommodation or payment of rent as contemplated by Sec. 19(f) itself. There may be cases where the plaintiff can successfully prove before the competent court that the claim of the plaintiff for eviction of the respondent is accepted. We need not ponder for cases and circumstances where the eviction or exclusion can be allowed or refused. It depends on facts of each case for which no further discussion is necessary in the facts of the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Manpreet Sahni vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 August, 2022

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Senior Citizen would contend that the District Magistrate/ Maintenance Tribunal is fully empowered to invoke summary proceedings for passing eviction orders. He relied on various judgments of this Court as well as Delhi High Court, i.e., Hamina Kang versus District Magistrate (U.T.), Chandigarh and others2, Smt. Ravneet Kaur versus Shri Prithpal Singh Dhingra3, Vrinda Sharma 1 2021 AIR (SC) 177 2 (2016 (1 RCR (Civil 976) 3 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7159 -5- For Subsequent orders see RA-CW-227-2022 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA 5 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 28-12-2022 11:55:07 ::: CWP-3664-2018 (O&M) versus State of Haryana and others4, Mamta Sharma versus Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Maintenance Tribunal and others5, Madalsa Sood versus Maunicka Makkar and another6 and Vrinda Sharma versus State of Haryana and others7.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - A Monga - Full Document

Daljit Singh vs Gagandeep Sidhu on 29 April, 2024

32. Attempting to shorten the academic discussion, reference can lastly be invited to the decision of this court in the case of Madalsa Sood v. Maunicka Makkar10, which was a suit was filed by the father-in-law against the daughter-in-law seeking possession of the accommodation in the suit property after the son of the husband of the defendant/daughter-in-law had expired. An application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was filed and although defendant/daughter-in- law countenanced that her rights in the suit premises are protected by virtue of interim orders passed by the learned MM in the proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, upholding the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, it was held that there was a desperate attempt by the defendant to question the exclusive title of the father-in-law to the suit premises and the defence raised was implausible and in the nature of total moonshine.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Surender Singh vs Jaideep Solanki And Another on 20 September, 2023

19. In response to the argument put forth by the appellant's counsel, claiming that the actions of respondent no. 2 inflict mental distress, emotional turmoil, and constant fear upon the appellant, this court holds that it is the joint responsibility of both parties to maintain peace and harmony. Given that both parties are entangled in multiple legal disputes, conflicts are MCA No. 5/2022 Surender Singh Vs. Jaideep Solanki & Anr. Page 11 of 16 likely to arise, for which legal remedies are available to address them. However, ejecting respondent no. 2 at this stage would result in irreparable harm to her. Reliance on the judgment in Madala Sood (supra) is inapplicable here as the facts of the present case significantly differ from those of the cited case.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next