Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Karam Singh And Ors. vs Nathu Singh on 8 August, 1994

Mrs. Jyotika D/O. Late Shri Jayant Lal vs Shri Anil Lal S/O. Shri Parshotam Lal, ... on 16 May, 2003

In Karam Singh & Others (supra) the plaintiff's suit was for partition of the property to the allegation that he and the defendants were joint owners but one of the defendant had raised constructions to defeat his rights and his share be partitioned. He also applied for ad interim injunction. The defense was that the plaintiff had given up his right and he had also lost his rights, if any, by ouster, exclusion and adverse possession. On these facts it was observed that ad interim injunction should be granted to the plaintiff on terms. Here, there is no admission that Jayant Lal, father of the plaintiff was joint owner of the property or disputed property was Hindu undivided property.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M A Khan - Full Document

Sh. Sudershan Kumar Seth vs Sh. Pawan Kumar Seth And Ors. on 5 September, 2005

4. The plaintiff has relied on , Md. Mohammd Ali (Dead) by LRs v. Jagdish Kalita and Ors.; , Neelavathi and Ors. v. N. Natarajan and Ors.; , Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram and Ors.; , Karam Singh and Ors. v. Nathu Singh; , Governing Body of Dayanand Anglo Vedic College v. Padmanabha Pathy and Ors. and , Abdulla Bin Ali and Ors. v. Galappa and Ors. to contend that only the allegations made in the plaint are to be considered for determination of the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction does not depend upon the defense taken by the defendants in the written statement and the question of Court fees payable by the plaintiff has to be considered in the light of allegations made in the plaint only. The learned counsel Mr. Ahluwalia relied on the principles of law that in case of co-owners, possession of one is in law possession of all, unless ouster or exclusion is proved and continue to be in possession in law, it is not necessary that the plaintiff should be in actual possession of the whole or part of the property. According to him it is not even necessary that a co-sharer should be getting a share or some income from the property as long as his right to a share and the nature of the property is not disputed that he is in joint possession unless he is excluded from such possession.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 43 - A Kumar - Full Document

Sh. Sat Prakash Chhibbar vs Sh. K. N. Chhabbar & Anrs on 16 May, 2007

In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in "Karam Singh & Ors. Vs Nathu Singh" 1995 RLR (Note) wherein his lordship observed that the possession of one co-sharer is possession of all. Rights of a co-sharer not in actual possession cannot be easily defeated by pleas of ouster, exclusion or adverse possession by other co-sharer and the former is entitled to seek interim injunction against the hostile acts of others.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1