Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 477 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Ors vs Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors on 7 January, 2014

M.Kanagaraj vs M.Siriram on 3 August, 2016

26.As per the dictum of the Apex Court in 2014(4) CTC 471 ? Union of India V. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., the plaintiff has to succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. But, here, the plaintiff has proved his case by way of filing documents and letting oral evidence. Per contra, the appellants has not proved their case. Because, Ex.35 came into effect after Ex.A15, the sale certificate issued. But, in Ex.B36, compromise decree, no power for alienation has been given. Further, as per Ex.A9, it was held that there was no such Thaika available, But, Exx.B35 and 25 has proved that they are concocted and Exs.B6, 18 and 19 are collusive decree and there is no document to show that 5th defendant obtained sale deed from the Court of law and taken possession through the Court of law. Non examination of the 5th defendant is fatal and hence, I am of the view that the defendants have not proved their case and that factum was rightly considered by both the Court below. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled any relief in the second appeal and the substantial questions of law 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

S.Palanivel vs P.Natesan

(i)In AIR 2014 SC 937 (Union of India Vs. Vasavi Co-Op Housing Society Ltd), wherein it has been held as follows_ "The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff's own title, plaintiff must be non-suited."
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Amidias Mathews P vs Ibrahim C V on 1 July, 2025

20. As per Union of India v. Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd.; (AIR 2014 SC 937) and Smt. Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma; (2023 SCC OnLine SC 7), the plaintiffs must prove superior title to succeed in their claim for declaration. The plaintiffs fail to establish Puttamma's title to Survey No.22/1, as their sale deeds omit explicit reference to the survey number and no title deeds, RTCs or mutation records support Puttamma's ownership. The unregistered GPAs further weaken their case, as they cannot convey title.
Bangalore District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next