Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Sukhdeo Behari Lal vs (Firm) Rama Nand Dwarka Das on 25 October, 1934

Lila Ram vs Mohar Chand And Ors. on 13 July, 1966

It does not, however, seem to have been brought to his notice that subsequently the matter had been considered by a Full Bench of Lahore High Court in Behari Lal v. Narain Das, AIR 1935 Lah 475 (FB), wherein it was held that where in a suit for possession, plaintiff pleads possession and dispossession, the suit is governed by Article 142 of Limitation Act, 1908 and that it cannot be said that in all cases Article 144 is to govern the case once the plaintiff has proved a title to the property.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Baswanneppa Yellappa And Anr. vs Basavannappa And Ors. on 12 February, 1959

A similar question arose before the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in the case of Behari Lal v. Narain Das, AIR 1935 Lah 475. That was a suit for possession of a house. The plaintiffs leased it to defendant 2. Their contention was that the defendant 2 sub-leased it to defendant 1. In an earlier suit they got a decree for rent against defendant 2 alone, but the suit was dismissed against defendant 1. They, therefore, filed the present suit for recovery of possession. Applying Art. 142, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The appellate Court confirmed the decree. According to the Full Bench, it was held:
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Gama vs Spl. Judge & Others on 19 October, 2012

The above mentioned two writ petitions are against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2001 passed by Special Judge (A.C.)/Additional District and Sessions Judge Varanasi in civil revision no. 284 of 1999 arose out of original suit no 1189 of 1995 (Gama Vs Rama ) and civil revision no. 285 of 1999 arose out of original suit no. 1190 of 1995 ( Shyam Lal Vs. Rama) raises common question of law to be decided by this court. As such both the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by common judgement The facts giving rise to the controversy in the present two writ petitions mentioned above are that the suits were filed by the petitioners against the defendant -respondent(Rama) seeking relief that the defendants be directed to execute sale deed in respect of land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint in lieu of the land which was sold to them by registered sale deed dated 2.5.1984 The case of the petitioners is that Rama son of Raju i.e defendant/respondent no.3 executed two registered sale deeds of the same date i.e 2.5.1984 asserting himself to be a Bhumidhar of the land, which was subject matter of sale deeds, after taking adequate consideration. The plaintiff's case is that they have entered into possession of the land which were subject matter of the two sale deeds. However, in the month of June 1995 they came to know that land sold to them was Gaon Sabha property. Thereafter they confirmed the fact from the record and after satisfying themselves they asked the defendant (Rama) to return the sale consideration given by them along with other expenses incurred in execution of sale deeds dated 2.5.1984. Two notices were given on 12.7.1995 and 15.7.1995 by the petitioners. In reply given to the notice the defendant-respondent no.3 denied the assertions made therein and finally on 30.10.1995 he refused to pay back the amount of consideration along with other expenses as also the request of the plaintiffs to execute another fresh sale deed in lieu of consideration received by him.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Mst. Bajji vs Bhairon on 12 December, 1956

In Behari Lal v. Narain Das, AIR 1935 Lah 475 (FB) (C), the plaintiffs came to Court with the allegation that the defendant Nabi Baksh was a tenant, and he had sub-let the premises to defendant No. 2. In a suit brought for arrears of rent, a decree was passed against Nabi Baksh, but the suit was dismissed against the other defendant. The plaintiffs, therefore, brought the suit for possession. It was held that the pleadings made out a case of possession and dispossession, and it was observed that --
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dasondhi Ram And Anr. vs Kaka Ram And Ors. on 21 March, 1966

19. The facts, in Behari Lal v. Narain Das, AIR 1935 Lah 475 (FB) were analogous to the facts of the present case. In that case, the plaintiffs had brought a suit for possession against the defendants alleging that they were the owners of the house in dispute and had given the same on lease to Nabi Bakhsh defendant No. 2 in the year 1927, that subsequently Nabi Bakhsh had granted a sub-lease to defendant No. 1, that thereafter they had sued Nabi Bakhsh and defendant No. 1 for rent, wherein defendant No. 1 had denied their title and had also denied that he was a tenant under Nabi Bakhsh and that they had, therefore, brought the suit for recovery of possession. On the above facts, it was held, by the Full Bench, that Article 142 Limitation Act, and not Article 144, applied to the case, though the plaintiffs had proved their title to the property in suit.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Puran Singh S/O Attra Singh And Anr. vs Ram Murti And Ors. on 7 December, 1962

8. The first question for determination in this case is whether Article r42 or Article 144 of the Indian Limitation Act applies to this case. The plaintiff in his plaint had stated that he was the owner of the land in dispute and had been paying its land revenue. Defendants 1 to 8 got into possession forcibly in kharif 1952. It is true that the plaintiff did not say in so many words that he was actually in possession of the property and had been dispossessed therefrom by defendants 1 to 8, but reading the plaint as a whole I have no manner of doubt that the plaintiff did plead possession and dispossession. It is not necessary that the plaintiff should have alleged this in so many words. What is necessary is whether on the allegations of fact made by him it is either alleged to follow as a necessary inference that he alleged possession and dispossession (see in this connection the observations of Dalip Singh, J., in the Full Bench decision of Behari Lal v. Narain Das, AIR 1935 Lah 475 (FB) ). I am, therefore, of the view that the trial Court was right in holding that Article 142 of the Indian Limitation Act applied to this case and the lower appellate Court was wrong in applying Article 144.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Darshan Singh vs Arjan Singh And Anr. on 23 November, 1967

Counsel then referred to the Full Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court in Behari Lal v. Narain Das, AIR 1935 Lah 475 (FB), wherein it was held that in a suit tor possession when tha plaintiff pleads possession and dispossession, the suit is governed by Article 142 and it cannot be said that in all cases Article 144 is to govern the case once the plaintiff has proved a title to the property. Dalip Singh J., who wrote the judgment of the Full Bench further held that dispossession may he either actual in the sense of an existing actual possession being forcibly terminated by actual dispossession, or it may be a legal constructive possession being terminated by a legal dispossession.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1