Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 136 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Sunny (Minor) & Anr. vs Sh. Raj Singh & Ors. on 17 November, 2015

Mohinder Singh Khurana vs Charanjeet Singh Khurana on 11 May, 2018

Even, the evidence of DW­2 to DW­5 is the  Hearsay evidence. None of these witnesses have deposed that they were ever directly told by Sardar Mohan Singh that the suit property was purchased by him from the joint funds of the business allegedly run by him. Otherwise also, even   if   it is assumed   that there existed any HUF   and suit property was purchased from the joint funds of the business of HUF, then also, as per the defendant the said HUF was created post 1956, hence, in view of the fact that the title deeds of the suit property are admittedly in the name of the plaintiff, therefore, the suit property is the 'self­acquired property of the plaintiff'.  The defendant has also nowhere pleaded that the plaintiff ever thrown the suit property   into   the   common  hotchpotch  for   converting   his   self   acquired property into a HUF property, which, as per the judgment of "Sunny", Minor (Supra),  is one  of  the way, post  1956, by  which  the property  attains the Mahinder Singh Vs. Charanjit Singh Page 15 of 19 character of   HUF property. The defendant has also not pleaded anywhere any date, month or year as to when the alleged HUF was created by his grand father late Sardar Mohan Singh.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alugaddala Kistaiah Pandu , ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(5), ... on 28 May, 2021

In view of the ratios of the judgments in the cases of Sunny (Minor) & Anr. (supra) and Sh. Surender Kumar (supra), plaintiff on the admitted facts as stated in the plaint has no cause of action or right to claim relief for a share in the suit property which is inherited by his father Sh.Vasudev Chopra from plaintiff‟s paternal grandfather Sh. Tara Chand Chopra as a self acquired property of Sh. Vasudev Chopra".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sagar Gambhir vs Shri Sukhdev Singh Gambhir And Anr. on 6 May, 2016

Also, at this stage, it is relevant to refer to the observations made in the judgment in the case of Surender CS(OS) No.1862/2010 Page 12 of 16 Kumar (supra) wherein reference is made to passing of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as „the Benami Act‟) and observed that once a property is found to be in the ownership of a particular person by title deeds (and that particular person being the defendant no.1 in the present case as regards the Rajinder Nagar property and the Faridabad property), it is hence the defendant no.1 who would be the owner of such properties and a suit for claiming rights in such properties would be barred by Section 4(1) of the Benami Act. Exceptions to Section 4(1) of the Benami Act are stated under Section 4(3) of the Benami Act and which are firstly of existence of an HUF or secondly of the property being purchased as a trustee/in fiduciary relationship. Since the provision of Section 4(3) of the Benami Act is in the nature of exception to the provision of Section 4(1), this aspect read with Order VI Rule 4 CPC which requires all necessary particulars to be mentioned in the plaint, plaintiff had to set up a clear cut case by pleading in the plaint as to how HUF and its properties have come into existence and as to how the suit properties are HUF properties once the title deeds of the properties are admittedly in the name of the defendant no.1.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 21 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Sh. Surender Kumar Khurana vs Sh. Tilak Raj Khurana & Ors on 18 January, 2016

6(i). It is also required to be noted that properties which are referred to in para 6(vi) to 8 of the plaint are wholly vague properties without any details and it is not understood as to how, unless specific details exist of the properties, a property can at all be a subject matter of a suit, much less of partition. This is an aspect I have considered in the judgment in the case of Sunny (Minor) & Anr. Vs. Sh. Raj Singh & Ors., CS(OS) 431/2006, decided on 17.11.2015 and the relevant para of which judgment on the issue at hand is para 10 and which para 10 reads as under:-.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 17 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Nand Kumar Newar vs Kamal Kumar Newar on 10 October, 2025

JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY PLAINTIFF Counsel for plaintiff has referred to certain judgments such as "SUNNY (MINOR) VS. RAJ SINGH & ORS 2016 154 DRJ 196", YUDHISTIR V. ASHOK KUMAR, (1987) 1 SCC 204, COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KANPUR AND ORS V. CHANDER SEN AND ORS MANU/SC/0265/1986; [1986] 161 ITR 370 (SC), SURENDER KUMAR V. DHANI RAM AND OTHERS AIR 2016 DELHI 120, R.K RAMETRA & ANOTHER V. PRAKASH CHAND KAUSHIK, V.N DHANWATEY V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AIR 1968 SC 683 A recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Anchit Sachdeva & Anr Vs. Smt. Sudesh Sachdeva, 2024 DHC 9629" has also been pointed out during oral arguments.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next