Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Kedar Nath Dubey (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Sheo Narain Dubey (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 12 May, 2005

Darshan Singh Thro Lrs Shivjit Singh And ... vs Harpal Singh And Ors on 18 January, 2016

5. This fact is now no more in dispute that the status of the I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH RSA-4025-2015(O&M) -3- appellants is that of usufructuary mortgagee. As per the observations in case of Singh Ram (D) through LRs Vs. Sheo Ram and others(supra), the law is well settled that there is no limitation to seek the redemption of the usufructuary mortgage.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Gupta - Full Document

Ajay Singhal vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 25 April, 2023

4. Though the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants has stated that she has been appointed only recently and prayed for some time, Mr. Anupam Srivastava, learned ASC for GNCTD, in his usual fairness, has stated that this question is no longer res integra and the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors. v. Narain Singh and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261, has decided the issue in favour of the Appellants herein. Relevant portions of the said judgment reads as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Blue Bird Properties Pvt Ltd (Now Blue ... vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 25 April, 2023

4. Though the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants has stated that she has been appointed only recently and prayed for some time, Mr. Anupam Srivastava, learned ASC for GNCTD, in his usual fairness, has stated that this question is no longer res integra and the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors. v. Narain Singh and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 261, has decided the issue in favour of the Appellants herein. Relevant portions of the said judgment reads as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Tayyub Hussain And Ors vs Deen Mohammad And Ors on 30 October, 2014

Hon'ble the Apex Court while granting leave in SLP titled as 'Singh Ram (D) through LRs v. Sheo Ram & others' (Civil Appeal No.5198 of 2008, decided on 21.08.2014), a 3-Judge Bench RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.11.14 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA Nos.4442 & 4475 of 2014 (O&M) 3 has upheld the findings of Full Bench of this Court in the case of 'Lachhman Singh v. Natha Singh through Harnam Singh & others' reported in 1940 AIR Lahore 401 while adjudicating on the question as to the right of mortgagor to redeem and applicability of Article 61 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act coupled with the right to redeem or recover possession if accrues on the date of mortgage itself or unless a different time is agreed between the parties. It has been held by their Lordships that when mortgage money is paid out of rents and profits or partly out of rents and profits and partly out of payment or deposit by mortgagor until then limitation does not start for the purpose of Article 61 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act; besides holding that an usufructuary mortgagee is not entitled to file a suit for declaration that he has become an owner merely on the expiry of 30 years from the date of the mortgage. Thus, from it stands established firstly that the plaintiffs have no cause to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to seek a declaration to that effect much less the question of limitation having come into play.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - F D Singh - Full Document

Gurbachan Singh Etc vs Bhagat Singh on 29 October, 2014

Both the trial Court and the first appellate Court have RSA-800-1988 [7] held that as a period of thirty years has expired from the date of creation of the mortgage, the respondent has become owner by efflux of time. The findings so recorded and the judgments and decrees so passed are contrary to the declaration of law set out by a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Kishan's case (supra) and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Ram's case (supra). As a consequence, the appeal is allowed, judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside and the suit is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R Bhalla - Full Document

Mahmood vs Shahbaz on 26 November, 2014

On minute perusal of the revenue records, which are from the year 1935-36 till the year 1966-67 after seeking assistance of the official translator of this Court it becomes clear that the learned trial Court has erred in disposing off the matter taking area to be 34 Kanals 12 Marlas when as per the jamabandi for the year 1966-67 it is reflected to be 53 Kanals 4 Marlas. It has never taken into consideration the share of Mehmood Khan son of Nawaz Khan, who has since migrated to Pakistan and whose share in the property, which is apparent to be 50% of 34 Kanals 12 Malras of land had become evacuee property and was auctioned by the custodian, had its own repercussions on the overall findings of the courts besides the fact that the possession of defendant as a consequence of this auction by the custodian as per Ex.D10 was never handed over and only symbolic possession was made and that in the light of the recent Hon'ble Apex Court view in 'Singh Ram (D) through LRs v. Sheo Ram & others' (Civil Appeal No.5198 of 2008, decided on 21.08.2014), which holds that there is no time limit for redemption of mortgage and which would cast its own shadow on the outcome of the RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.03.04 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.2436 of 1986 4 suit, and therefore, how 1/2 share of 34 Kanals 12 Marlas of land would revert to the mortgagees has also to be considered afresh. Even the details of the property, subject matter of the dispute, given in the plaint which are 16 fields measuring 53 Kanals 4 Marlas do not tally with the revenue documents proved on the record and thus, is further creating hindrance in the judicious disposal of the matter.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - F D Singh - Full Document

Mehanga Singh And Ors vs Jaswant Kaur Thru Lrs And Ors on 22 March, 2018

The sole submission made by counsel is that as in the mortgage deed, it has been specifically provided that mortgage has been created for a period of three years with effect from 10.07.1975, right to redeem mortgage accrued to the mortgagors in July 1978 and as the mortgagors did not initiate any proceedings for redemption within a period of thirty years from July 1978, mortgagees got the right of foreclosure and have become joint owners in possession of land in question. It is further argued that the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Kishan and others vs. Sheo Ram and others, 2008(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 334 affirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court Singh Ram (d) through LRs vs. Sheo Ram and others, 2014 (9) Scale 411 is not applicable in the circumstances of the present case because the mortgage was created for a fixed period of three years whereas in the referred authorities, mortgage was not created for any particular period and in those circumstances it was held that once a mortgage is always a mortgage and is always redeemable.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Mittal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next