Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Chander Sain Jain vs Shri Sumer Chand on 15 September, 1999

Mrs. Nishi Sharma vs Shri Subhash Chandra Mehra on 22 May, 2007

18. It is no doubt true that the Court can take subsequent events into consideration while considering an eviction proceeding. However, the observations in Chander Sain Jain (supra) are to the effect that the acquisition of the property subsequent to an eviction order cannot be a ground with which I am in agreement. Not only that, in the present case there is no acquisition of a property but only devolution of interest from the mother while the physical possession was not available for the respondent. The brother of the respondent apparently agreed to sell the property so that the shares could be divided though he was alone in occupation of that property. Upon the demise of the mother, only one mumty room became available in the G.K. Part-I property.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 4 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Mahabir Parshad And Anr. vs Ved Wati Pathak And Ors. on 19 October, 2006

Again in Sudershan Dutta v. Krishan Narain 1997 RLR 534, it was held that the very purpose of owning a house would be defeated and of no avail if the landlord cannot get his own house when he needs it. The requirement of a pooja room was held to be valid in Chander Sain Jain v. Sumar Chand and in Shri Ram Pratap Sharma v. Rukmini Devi . In fact, it was held that in the society in which we live having the religious and social ethos, the landlord cannot be compelled to have a pooja room in the dining or bedroom.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Manjeet Kaur And Anr. vs Amarjeet Kaur And Ors. on 2 May, 2005

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants argued that Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, enumerate the kind of documents which require compulsory registration. The decree in the present case being for partition in relation to immovable properties, would fall under Section 17. However, in view of the exception contained in Section 17, the decree of partition under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17, would not require registration and not required to be engrossed on the stamp paper. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Gaj. Singh Yaday (Lt. Col.) v. Satish Chander Yadav and Ors., , Chander Sain Jain v. Shri Sumer Chand, , and P.K. Nangia v. Land & Development Officer, New Delhi and Anr., .
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1