Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.20 seconds)
Documents citing Rattan Lal Sahdev vs Krishan Kumar And Ors. on 14 October, 1992

Sh. Baldev Raj vs Sh. Man Mohan & Others on 25 May, 2001

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellants further sought to advance the proposition that the suit being one for partition, an injunction must ensure for the benefit of the appellants so that the property is protected and no third party rights are created. Learned counsel relied on the case of Ratanlal Sahdev vs. Krishan Kumar 1993 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 19 to advance his submission that the disposal of the property, in the absence of the interim injunction order is likely to complicate the matters. He further argued that since the alleged Will was in dispute, the appropriate forum to determine the validity of the Will was the Probate Court and not the present suit.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - S K Kaul - Full Document

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

In Rattanlal Sahdev (supra) the plaintiff was 25% owner of the suit property and the defendants owned the remaining shares and were in occupation of different portions of the suit property. Plaintiff filed suit for partition and prayed for ad interim injunction against the defendants restraining them from alienating the property in their possession. It was held that co-owners may be restrained from disposing of their portion if such disposal was likely to complicate the matter. Again, there is no admission that the father of the plaintiff was joint owner of the property against the defendants and as observed above also there is no prima facie evidence to hold it at this stage. Therefore, the principle of law laid down in the judgment does not advance the case of the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M A Khan - Full Document
1