Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.55 seconds)

Mrs. Sunita Sinha W/O Mr. S. Sinha vs M/S Leela Builders Pvt Ltd on 10 January, 2019

32. As as far, judgments Currimbhoy & Co. Ltd (Supra), Ram Niranjan Das & Anr (Supra), Ajmer Singh (Supra), Mahavir Prashad (Supra) relied upon by counsel for plaintiff with respect to maintainability of the suit by a co-owner or co-sharer against unauthorized occupant are concerned, the ratio of these judgments is not at all disputed, however, the defendant in the present suit cannot said to be unauthorized occupant of the suit property in view of the discussion done above and, therefore, these judgments cannot be said to be applicable to the case in hand. Since the property already stood transferred to the defendant nos. 1 to 6 in view of irrevocable GPA in the year 1989 itself when the mother of the plaintiffs i.e. one of the joint owner was alive, therefore, Sunita Sinha & Anr Vs. M/s Leela Builders Pvt Ltd & Ors Page 27 of 34 plaintiffs had no right title or interest in the suit property. The aforesaid proposition is applicable only when all the co-shares are at the same footing, however, in the present case defendant no. 9 & 10 being the joint sellers are not claiming any right in the property whereas plaintiffs being the LRs of one of the joint seller are claiming right in the property stating that entire consideration amount was never paid. Hence, issue no. 4, 8, 9 & 10 are decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S M Anis vs Saira on 31 May, 2023

In the light of law laid down in Mahavir Prashad's case (supra), Smt. Premwati's case (supra) and Dharam Singh's case (supra), a suit by a co-owner against a trespasser without impleading the other co- owners is maintainable and a co-owner can recover the possession of the entire property from a trespasser and the contention raised by counsel for CS DJ no.476/19 Page No. 16 / 21 the defendant no.1 is not sustainable. But, for the above discussion the defence set up by the defendant no.1 also seems to be contradictory. On the one hand, the defendant no.1 is denying right of the title of the plaintiff to recover possession from the plaintiff and on the other hand after admitting the title of mother and other siblings of the plaintiff the defendant no.1 is contending that the plaintiff being a co-owner only cannot maintain a suit to recover possession from the defendant no.1 without impleading others.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nanu Mal vs Bhagwat Pershad @ Bhagwat Sarup And Anr. on 8 March, 1994

In support of his submission Mr. Gupta referred to two Bench decisions of this Court in Mahavir Prasad v. Sukhdev Mongia andAnother, 1990 (2) R.C.J. 254, and Prem Pal Singh v. Jugal Kishore Gupta, . We do not think any of these two decisions is of any application to the present case. The argument of Mr. Gupta proceeded like this. The Court assumes jurisdiction on the basis of allegations made in the plaint and that the Court cannot look beyond that. We do not agree. It is true that initially the Court assumes jurisdiction on the basis of allegations made in the plaint, but then when the written statement is filed and objection raised about the jurisdiction and issue framed and evidence led, the Court has nevertheless to decide that issue. In both the decisions referred to above the plaintiff-landlord had alleged that the defendants were licensees or in unauthorised occupation of the premises and the Court held on evidence that that being so, it would certainly have jurisdiction in the matter. That is not the case here. Bhagwat Sarup had clearly proved his case that he was in possession of the shop on behalf of legal heirs of deceased brother Kishan Gopal and Rishikesh, and that Rishikesh and legal heirs of Kishan Gopal continued to be the tenants of the shop premises. Court cannot close its eyes to such facts and yet proceed to pass a decree against Bhagwat Sarup embroiling everyone in futurelitigation. We do not agree with the findings of the learned Trial Court that possession of Bhagwat Sarup and/or Rishikesh was unauthorised. Notice Ext. D-1 showed that the case set up by the plaintiff was not true. In order to defend the suit the defendants had only to prove that they were the tenants, or that they were in lawful possession of the shop premises. This they did. Civil Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction and the suit was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent ControlAct.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Smt. Krishna Prakash & Anr. vs Dilip Harel Mitra Chenoy on 10 August, 2001

18. A Division Bench of this Court in "Mahavir Prasad Vs. Sukhdev Mongia & Another, 1990 (2) RCJ 254 Delhi, relying on the cased "Currimbhoy & Co. Ltd. Vs. L.A.Creet & Others, AIR 1930 Calcutta 133; Ram Niranjan Das Vs. Loknath Mandal, ; Ajmer Singh Vs. Shamsher Singh, ; and Pal Singh (supra), also held that a suit for possession by a co-owner against a trespasser without impleading the other co-owners is maintainable. There is, thus, no substance in the plea raised against the maintainability of the suit. As a matter of fact, while making her oral submissions, the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants concluded her arguments giving up the said plea against maintainability of the suit. In any case, the plea against maintainability of the suit is not well founded and the plaintiff/respondent is held to be fully competent to maintain the suit. Issue No. 1 is, thus, answered affirmatively.

Chiranji Lal Ramji Dass & Ors. vs Pyare Lal Sharma (Through His L.R.???S) on 20 May, 2011

Relying upon the judgment of Kanta Goel Vs. B.P. Pathak & Others (1977) 2 SCC 814, the Supreme Court in Mahavir Prashad (Supra) had returned a finding that a co-owner can maintain an action for eviction even in the absence of other co-owners; it is also not the case of the defendant that the other co-owners had objected to this eviction petition. The defendant is also not disputing the title of his landlord Har Narain; he is even otherwise estopped from doing so under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. Plaintiff No. 2 along with his other brothers and sisters had stepped into the shoes of Har Narain. A suit by plaintiff No. 2 alone without joining his other brothers and sisters was well maintainable. The finding on issue No. 10 as returned by the trial RSA No.290-291/2007 Page 14 of 17 Judge is thus not sustainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - I Kaur - Full Document

Smt. Nargis Khanna vs M/S. Win-Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 18 July, 2011

18. A Division Bench of this Court in "Mahavir Prasad Vs. Sukhdev Mongia & Another, 1990 (2) RCJ 254 Delhi, relying on the cased "Currimbhoy & Co. Ltd. Vs. L.A.Creet & Others, AIR 1930 Calcutta 133; Ram Niranjan Das Vs. Loknath Mandal, ; Ajmer Singh Vs. Shamsher Singh, ; and Pal Singh (supra), also held that a suit for possession by a co-owner against a CS(OS) No. 2056/2008 Page No.12 of 17 trespasser without impleading the other co-owners is maintainable. There is, thus, no substance in the plea raised against the maintainability of the suit."
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - M Singh - Full Document

Mrs. Raisa Begum vs Sh. Abdul Rashid on 15 January, 2014

42. Further, Mahavir Prasad(Supra), is also distinguishable from the facts of the present case, as in the same, the plaintiff in the plaint had stated that defendant was unauthorized occupant and defendant had claimed to be tenant which he had failed to prove and the plaintiff had proved that the defendant was unauthorized occupant, but in the present case, the defendant cannot be said to be unĀ­ authorized occupant as discussed in para no. 41 above.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Rahees Ahmed vs Kadir Ahmed on 21 May, 2024

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment titled as Mahavir Parshad vs Sukhdev Mongia & ors 40 (1990) Delhi Law Times 82 held that a suit for eviction can be maintained by co-owner without impleading another co-owner in the suit. In these circumstances the non impleadment of Samshad Ahmed in the present case was not fatal to the case of plaintiff and as such co-owner Samshad Ahmed was not necessary or proper party to the present suit.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Laik Ahmed vs Kadir Ahmed on 21 May, 2024

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment titled as Mahavir Parshad vs Sukhdev Mongia & ors 40 (1990) Delhi Law Times 82 held that a suit for eviction can be maintained by co-owner without impleading another co-owner in the suit. In these circumstances the non impleadment of Samshad Ahmed in the present case was not fatal to the case of plaintiff and as such co-owner Samshad Ahmed was not necessary or proper party to the present suit.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Zaki Hasan Ors vs Salauddin Ors on 29 March, 2025

2025.04.01 16:55:01 +0530 the co-owners, plaintiffs are entitled to seek possession of the suit property, on behalf of the other co-owners also. It is settled law that any of the co-owners of the property may maintain a suit for possession on behalf of the other co- owners unless the same is objected to by the other co- owners. Reliance may be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, titled as Mahavir Prashad v. Sukhdev Mongia, 1989 (2) RCR. 418 (para-15) "15.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next