Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Dharamvir vs Naresh Kumar And Ors. on 17 December, 2004

Naresh Jain vs Dharamveer Singh on 17 November, 2021

"11. The Court has perused the notifications which have been placed on record. A perusal of the said notifications shows that the Defendants are relying upon the first notification No. F. 9(20)/66-Law-Corp dated 13th June, 1963, notification No. F.2(49)/65-LSG dated 28th May, 1966, and a subsequent notification No. S.O. 1236 dated 27th March, 1979, issued by the Central Government. The said notifications do not show clearly that village Ghonda Chouhan Bangar has been specifically notified both under Section 507 of the DMC Act and under Section 1 of the DRC Act. The village Ghonda appears to have various portions and unless and until there are specific notifications qua each of the portions, under each of the enactments, it cannot be said that the area is covered by the DRC Act. The judgment in Mitter Sen Jain (supra) is clear to this effect that notifications would be required under both legislations. The relevant portion of the said judgment is set out below:
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Tis Hazari Courts vs Shri Umesh Sharma on 31 October, 2011

A perusal of the record show that the plaintiffs have claimed that the suit property is ancestral and that they are co-owners of the same alongwith defendant. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs are not claiming their share in the suit property so as to crystallize the same so that the defendant can be restrained from disposing off their share. It is a settled law that no injunction can be granted against a lawful owner of the immovable property (Vide Premji Ratansey Shah v. Union of India, 1994(5) S.C.C. 547; Dharamvir v. Naresh Kumar, CXXXIX (2005) Punjab Law Reporter 5217; Ranukanta Mullaiah v. Sircilla Rajamma, 2007(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 441 (A.P.)) and in this case as per the plaintiffs, parties are the co-owners of the suit property. Under such circumstances, a simplicitor suit for permanent injunction would not be maintainable.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1