Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 64 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Gautam Paul vs Debi Rani Paul And Ors on 17 October, 2000

Indirani vs Saraswathy

16. In view of the facts circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any bearing to the facts of this case, but it only supports to the case of the respondents. In the instant case, first of all the sale has not been effected in favour of a third party, secondly the alleged purchasers are not parties to the suit and thirdly the alleged purchase does not claim partition and separate possession in the suit property. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2001 SC 61 and by this Court in 2010 (5) CTC 70, cited supra squarely apply to the case on hand. In such factual situation, the applications filed by the petitioner were rightly rejected by the trial court. I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned orders.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - K Kalyanasundaram - Full Document

Sunil Gupta vs Nargis Khanna on 6 September, 2011

5. The proposition and law has also been reinforced in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Gautam Paul V. Debi Rani Paul (AIR 2001 SC 867). The law on the point is clear and categorical. The buyer of a share of the co-sharer cannot have the right to joint possession. If a transferee gets into possession of a share in the dwelling house, the possession becomes joint and is illegal. Courts cannot countenance or foster illegal possession. The citations relied upon make it amply clear that the stranger/transferee to the suit property is not only liable to the restrained but is also to be evicted from the possession RFA No.139/2011 Page 5 of 23 therein. The only recourse for such a transferee is to seek partition in the suit premises.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 7 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next