Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (2.40 seconds)
Documents citing Harish Chand Tandon vs Darpan Tandon & Anr. on 23 September, 2015

Rajesh Kumar vs . Ravi Kumar & Ors. on 24 May, 2017

8. The ruling Harish Chand Tandon vs. Darpan Tandon & Anr. (Supra), relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for defendants is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said ruling, father had filed a suit 5 for mandatory injunction and damages seeking the removal of his son and his daughter-in-law from the property, owned by him. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, decreed the suit under Order 12 Rue 6 CPC and Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. In the case in hand, the son is seeking his share in the property owned by his mother and there is apprehension that the suit property is going to be sold by the defendants.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sneha Ahuja vs Satish Chander Ahuja on 18 December, 2019

By placing reliance on Harish Chand Tandon Vs. Darpan Tandon & Ors. 2015 (153) DRJ 273, she submits that the decision of the Supreme Court in Shumita Didi (supra) and S.R. Batra (supra) continues to remain binding on this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Thus, a daughter-in-law who resides in the suit premises as gratuitous licensees of the father-in-law in these appeals, cannot claim an absolute right of residence in these premises. In the present appeal she contends that the plea of the suit premises being a shared household is also belied by the averments of the daughter-in-law in her own complaint under the DV Act as she has, in paragraph 32 thereof, specifically stated that she was not being permitted to eat from the common kitchen of the household and had been using a separate kitchen set up for her in the year 2004; this is in the teeth of the settled position of law that a property cannot be treated as a shared household when there is no commonality of kitchen. Ms. Luthra contends that in any event, the daughter-in-law is only entitled to claim maintenance from her husband or claim a right to stay in a property where her husband is presently staying, but she cannot insist upon residing in a house exclusively owned by her in-laws. She submits that even the plea of the daughter-in-law that the suit RFA 222/2019 & Conn. Page 18 of 66 premises was joint family property cannot hold ground in the light of the conveyance deed dated 12.01.1983 whereby the premises have been recorded in the individual name of the father-in-law, and his income tax returns whereunder he has been assessed as an individual person and not as a HUF. In these circumstances, she submits that no HUF had ever been constituted by the father-in-law and a mere self-serving averment made by the daughter-in-law in her written statement that the suit premises is a joint family property, was rightly not relied upon by the trial Court. In case the daughter-in-law wanted to plead that the suit property did indeed form a part of the joint family property, the onus to prove this claim was on her, which she failed to discharge.
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 4 - R Palli - Full Document

Shri Naranjan Singh vs Smt. Ravinder Kaur on 7 July, 2022

Page no. 23 of 42 AIR 2007 SC 1118, Barun Kumar Nahar v. Parul Nahar & Anr. judgment in CS (OS) no.2795/2011, Sudha Mishra v. Surya Chandra Mishra judgment in RFA no.299/2014, Harish chand Tandon v. Darpan Tandon & Anr. judgment in CS (OS) no.1738/2013, Sachin & Anr. v. Jhabbu Lal & Anr. and Richa Gaur v. Kamal Kishore Gaur, 2020 (1) AWC 667, judgment in RSA no.136/2016, all passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next