Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)
Documents citing Sarla Kumari vs Santosh Kumari And Ors. on 2 July, 1996

Jagdish Chander vs Smt.Leelawati And Others on 6 November, 2008

In this regard,reliance can be placed in the titled as Sarla Kumari Vs. Santosh Kumari- CCC 1997 (1) 168 relied upon by the counsel for the defendant/respondent. Admittedly, the land in dispute is joint and has not been partitioned. Defendant/respondent has become a co-sharer by virtue of the sale deed dated 11.6.91 in his favour executed by Om Parkash the erstwhile co-sharer in the suit land. So in view of this, the defendant being a co-sharer/co-owner has an interest in the whole suit land and also in every parcel of the suit land. His possession shall be deemed to be in each parcel of the land. He cannot get his specific possession in the suit land on partition of the land not otherwise or he can claim a decree for declaration for joint possession with the plaintiff/appellant un-authorisedly or forcibly except in due course of law.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R K Garg - Full Document

Qayam Din vs Sadiqan & Ors on 16 November, 2012

Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has vehemently argued that the findings returned by both the courts below are wrong, illegal and are liable to be set aside on the ground that co-sharer in possession of land to the exclusion of other co-sharers has right to remain in occupation till partition. He has placed reliance upon judgments passed by this High Court in Sarla Kumari Vs. Santosh Kumari 1997 (1) Civil Court Cases 168(P&H) & Bal Kishan Vs. Ram Singh 2001(3) Civil Court Cases 52 (P&H). Thus it was prayed that both the courts below ought to have decreed the suit of the plaintiff and hence the findings returned by them are liable to be set aside. It was further argued in alternative that since there is no finding regarding possession, therefore, the matter should be remanded back to determine the question RSA No.3020 of 2012(O&M) #3# as to who is in possession of the property at present.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1