Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Shanmughasundaram And Ors vs Diravia Nadar (D) By Lrs. And Anr on 11 March, 2005

Smt. Sangita Jain vs Smt. Madhu Jain on 26 September, 2015

37. Fourthly, the principles of law laid down in cases Shanmughasundarama and Ors v. Diravia Nadar (D) (supra), Nalamathu Venkaya (died as per LR vs. B.S. Neelkanta & Anr. (supra), Lavinder Kumar Sharma vs. Parmod Kumar (supra), Amarendra Nath Ghoshal vs. Brij Mohan Agarwal (supra), Shanker Singh vs. Narinder Singh & Ors. (supra), B.B. Sabharwal & Anr vs. M/s Sonia Associates (supra), Saadamani Kandappan vs. Mrs. S. Rajalakshmi & Ors. (supra), and Surjit Singh & Anr. vs. Manohar Lal & Ors. (supra) will not provide any benefit to the plaintiffs as the facts of present case and those cases are different.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinod Trivedi vs Prem Grover on 1 October, 2008

A plain reading of para 29 of the said judgment shows that the court was of the opinion that sale of entire property in the absence of co-owners could not have been proceeded with. However, the court significantly noticed that the co-owners who FAO (OS) No.231 of 2008 page 4 of 9 had executed the agreement were competent to execute only to the extent of their undivided share. In the present case, the plaintiff is seeking a decree for specific performance of the contract with the defenant No.1 whereby the latter's one half undivided share is sought to be conveyed. On a proper application of the ratio in the above judgment and Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act this court is of the opinion that the applicant is not a necessary party. In the event of any relief being granted to the plaintiff, he would necessarily have to seek recourse to another partition suit to seek possession of a specific share in the property. The application is accordingly dismissed."
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

S.Pachaimmal vs B.Suriya Prakasam on 30 November, 2018

10. The next aspect is that when admittedly the defendants 1 to 4 have only 4/9 share in the suit property, plaintiff cannot seek specific performance for the entire property. The authority of the Supreme Court in Shanmughasubdaram Vs Diravia Nadar by Lrs [(2005)10 SCC 728] declares it pointedly. The next option open to the plaintiff is to settle for a lesser share, 4/9 share to be precise, to which he is entitled to under Sec.12 of the specific Relief Act.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

Sajja Prabhakar vs N Subash on 19 March, 2019

71. Moreover, it was held in Shanmughasundaram v. Diravia Nadar17, that as between co-owners such as brothers and sisters who have jointly inherited property, neither the concept of coparcenery nor agency would be attracted; and in the absence of partition among them, some of them cannot sell the property and at best they can sell only their undivided shares and the purchasers would have to sue for partition. The Court stated:
Telangana High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - M S Rao - Full Document

M/S. Ganesh Builders, Nagpur Thr. ... vs Smt. Chayatai Vijayrao Wanjare And ... on 30 August, 2019

6. Shri A.B.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 8 supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that as the mother and the sisters were not signatories to the agreement dated 01.04.1999 as well as the arbitration agreement dated 17.08.1999, the award against them was rightly set aside. Without the said parties being the signatories to the aforesaid agreements and without there being any credible evidence in that regard, the Arbitrator was not justified in proceeding on the basis that they had given implied consent to Nagorao and Baban to enter into the agreements. Placing reliance on the decisions in MMTC Limited VS. Vedanta Limited (2019) 4 SCC 163, Shanmughasundaram and others Vs. Diravia Nadar(dead) by Lrs and another, (2005) 10 SCC 728 and Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2010) 13 SCC 216 , it was submitted that the conclusion recorded that the award suffered from perversity was a correct finding not requiring any interference.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document

Bahadur Singh And Anr. vs Avtar Singh on 21 February, 2007

8. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanmughasundaram and Ors. v. Diravia Nadar (D) by LRs. to content that the present application moved by the petitioners was barred by principle of res judicata as earlier application moved by Jasbir Singh and Jagdeep Singh was dismissed by the Court on the objection having been taken by the petitioners. Para 20 of the said judgment reads as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Kammana Sambamurthy (D) By Lrs vs Kalipatnapu Atchutamma & Ors on 8 October, 2010

25. Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel for vendor's wife also argued that she had offered as joint owner to the undivided entire property to purchase the half share of her husband under the Partition Act, 1893 and Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He would submit that at the earliest point of time both in a notice as well as in the written statement she has raised the plea of pre-emption to buy her husband's share and demanded the vendee as well as her husband to sell undivided half share to her. In this regard, he further submitted that the property is an undivided dwelling house and the court should not grant specific performance against the co-owners of the family dwelling house. 24 He relied upon Ghantesher Ghosh v. Madan Mohan Ghosh & Ors.5, Pramod Kumar Jaiswal and Ors. v. Bibi Husn Bano and Ors.6 and Shanmughasundaram & Ors. v. Diravia Nadar (Dead) By LRs. & Anr.7.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 25 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Ms. Promilla Sethi & Ors. vs Sh. Inder Narain & Ors. on 24 December, 2010

Similarly, in Shanmughasundaram (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be invoked by the vendee to obtain sale deed of undivided share of the two brothers with a right to force partition on the sisters who were not parties to the agreement to sell. However, in the present case the shares of the parties are defined. The portions of the property given in gift to his two sons were earmarked RFA No. 13/1975 Page 28 of 34 and thus, this judgment also has no application to the facts of the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next