Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Hans Raj And Ors. vs Banta Ram And Ors. on 10 August, 2007

Lakha Singh vs Mohinder Singh And Ors on 13 May, 2019

Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon RSA No.2175 of 2004, D/d 10.8.2007 titled as "Hans Raj and others vs. Banta Ram and others" and RSA No.4260 of 2011, D/d 4.12.2012 titled as "Hanuman and others vs. Rajesh Kumar and others" and has argued that as per section 53A of TPA he cannot be dispossessed. The aforesaid citations are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand at this stage as in the case in citations, agreement to sell was involved whereas in the present case, one compromise has been alleged, which is yet to be proved during trial."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahabir Singh vs Gurbax Singh on 6 November, 2008

Mr. Joshi states that this fact has been wrongly recorded in the opening lines of the judgment. Be that as it may, petitioner has failed Regular Second Appeal No. 3501 of 2008 6 before the two Courts below and the concurrent finding of fact is against the appellant. Mr. Joshi has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Hans Raj and Others v. Banta Ram and Others 2007 (4) Recent Civil Reports 400 to state that injunction in favour of person in possession on the basis of part performance of agreement to sell is justifiable. This is not applicable to the facts of the case as earlier stated that the delivery of possession is not noticed in two documents (Annexure P3 and P4) which are agreements to sell.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - K S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Badri Ram vs Narayan Ram on 19 September, 2008

Since it is a case of specific performance of contract of the year 1994 for which suit has been filed in the year 2008 and there is no documentary evidence evidencing agreement for sale nor there is written proof of making payment of huge amount of Rs.1,40,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant and the affidavit of one of the alleged partner of the defendant supporting plaintiff is of no consequence. If the trial court has refused the injunction after taking note of these facts, this count finds no illegality in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Panjab and Harayana High Court delivered in the case of Hans Raj & Anr. Vs. Banta Ram & ors reported in 2007(4) CCC 693 (P&H) wherein it has been held that prospective vendee is entitled to protect his possession in part performance of the agreement to sell. The said case has no application to the facts of this case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - P C Tatia - Full Document
1