Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Chhote Khan, Deceased, Represented By ... vs Mal Khan And Others on 21 April, 1954

Ramesh Arya vs Pawan Arya And Ors. on 5 September, 2019

24. The question otherwise also is not res integra. Supreme Court in Chhote Khan Vs. Mal Khan AIR 1954 SC 575 was concerned with a Settlement Agreement between family members, owners of an immovable property and which settlement inter alia debarred any of them from claiming partition. It was inter alia held that partition is a right incident to the ownership of property and once the defendants in that case were found to be the co-owners, their right to partition could not be resisted.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

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

Reliance has also been placed upon Kanak Jain and Ors Vs. Chakresh Kumar Jain CS(OS) no. 1599/2008 and CC No. 25/2009 decided on 15.04.2019 by Delhi High Court, Chhote Khan, deceased, Represented by his son, Harmat and Ors Vs. Mal Khan and Ors AIR 1954 SC 575, Abubakar Abdul Inamdar (Dead) by LRs and Ors Vs. Harun Abdul Inamdar and Ors (1995) 5 SCC 612, Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) by LRs Vs. Jagdish Kalita and Others (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 271, B.R. Patil Vs. Tulsa Y. Sawkar and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 240 decided on 09.02.2022, and Mohammadbhai Kasambhai Sheikh and others Vs. Abdulla Kasambhai Sheikh (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 385.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By Its ... vs Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society ... on 6 September, 2002

92. The Supreme Court in Choote Khan V. Mal Khan17 while considering the nature of the entries in Jamabandi and as to whether such entries fall within the purview of Record of Rights maintained under Section 31 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 observed that "by section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act an entry made in the record of rights or in an annual record shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. That entries in the Jamabandies fall within the purview of the record of rights under section 31 of the Act admits of no doubt. Section 16 of the old Act (XXIII of 1871) laid down that entries in the record of rights made or authenticated at a regular Settlement shall be presumed to be true."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 57 - Cited by 202 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Harkishan And Ors. vs Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese on 21 November, 1980

(28) But, what of the intermediate case, as here, where there is no indication one way or the other, either express or implied ? Or, in other words, what is the ordinary span of an agreement recorded in a wajib-ul-arz? At one time there were diverse opinions on this point, but the Supreme Court has now approved the view that an entry in a wajib-ul-arz 'holds good during the period of the settlement in which it is made and becomes inoperative when the .settlement has come to am end': see Chhote Khan and others v. Mal Khan and others, . Thus, even accepting that entry 19 recorder an agreement, it lasted only till 1908, when the next settlement was made. As. it was not then renewed, it did not operate thereafter, and is of no consequence in the present appeals.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next