Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 129 (3.46 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Singh & Ors vs Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan & Ors on 22 September, 1986

Sawai Madhopur Oil And Pulse Industries ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 8 August, 2002

59. Ram Singh and Ors. v. Gram Panchayat, Mehal Kalan and Ors. . This is a case of suit against a Gram Panchayat for declaration of title to certain land and for injunction. Suit was filed questioning the entries made in revenue records showing suit land as belonging to Panchayat. Panchayat claimed that the suit land belonged to it. The Supreme Court held that the question has to be decided by Collector only under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act and that the jurisdiction of Civil Court, expressly taken away by Section 13 of the Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 102 - Cited by 1 - A K Parihar - Full Document

Manmohan Singh vs Harbans Singh & Others on 6 February, 2009

The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not relevant to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Singh and others Vs. Gram Panchayat, Mehal Kalan and others (supra) was considering whether by way of clever drafting the jurisdiction could be given to the Civil Court which is otherwise barred. No such question arises in the present case. The order which is against the provisions of Act, thus, void can always be challenged in civil Court. The plaintiff-respondents had challenged the exchange to be bad and not effecting their right.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shiv Mohan vs Ram Jokhan Singh And 6 Others on 22 October, 2019

"i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction/ appropriate order in the nature of mandamus commanding the Upziladhikari, Tehsil Koraon, District Allahabad to decide the restoration application under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, being case No.T2018020309054 of 2018 (Ramjokhan Singh and others Vs. Gram Panchayat and others) in case No.T201702323091349 of 2017 (Ramjokhan Singh and others Vs. Gram Panchayat and others), expeditiously, if possible within reasonable time/ time bound frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A K Mishra - Full Document

Canara Bank vs P Sellathal (Dead) Thr Lrs on 28 February, 2020

8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to the facts of the case on hand and the averments in the plaints, we are of the opinion that both the courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaints in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. As observed hereinabove, the main prayer in the suits is challenging the decree passed by the DRT.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 31 - M R Shah - Full Document

B.Rajamani vs N.Gunasekaran on 24 October, 2016

It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 16/23 the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.” 6.9 In Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan (1986) 4 SCC 364, this Court has observed and held that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation."
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandra @ Savithri vs Parvathi (Deceased) on 23 July, 2021

7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the facts of the case in hand and the averments in the plaint, we are of the opinion that both the courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the gift deed was executed by the original plaintiff himself along with his brother. The deed of gift was a registered gift deed. The execution of the gift deed is not disputed by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift and therefore the same is not binding on him. However, it is required to be noted that for approximately 22 years, neither the plaintiff nor his brother (who died on 15-12-2002) claimed at any point of time that the gift deed was showy deed of gift. One of the executants of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 17/22 CRP(NPD) No.1563 of 2012 gift deed, brother of the plaintiff during his lifetime never claimed that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift. It was the appellant herein-original defendant who filed the suit in the year 2001 for partition and the said suit was filed against his brothers to which the plaintiff was joined as Defendant 10. It appears that the summon of the suit filed by the defendant being TS (Partition) Suit No. 203 of 2001 was served upon Defendant 10-plaintiff herein in the year 2001 itself. Despite the same, he instituted the present suit in the year 2003. Even from the averments in the plaint, it appears that during these 22 years i.e. the period from 1981 till 2001/2003, the suit property was mortgaged by the appellant herein-original defendant and the mortgage deed was executed by the defendant. Therefore, considering the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of the opinion that by clever drafting the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation which, otherwise, is barred by law of limitation.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A D Chandira - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next