Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Sanjay Gupta And Anr. vs Ved Kanti Gupta And Anr. on 30 September, 1994

Dr. Mangal Dass Kapoor vs Smt. Kamla Rani on 11 August, 2009

Rai Bahadur Singh (1950) 77 Ind App 98 wherein the Privy Council restored a decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge declaring the plaintiff's contingent interest in the remainder by observing "It is clear that it was competent for him to do so under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act..." The above view about maintainability of a suit for declaration simplicitor, where the plaintiff does not seek any other relief, has been affirmed in the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Joginder Kaur Malik v. Malik Anup Singh AIR 1966 Pun 385 as well as two judgments of this court, in Sanjay Gupta v. Ved Kanti Gupta 1994 (31) DRJ 76 and Jugdish Chander v. Punjab National Bank 1998 RLR 254. Thus, the present suit is maintainable, even though the plaintiff has not sought any consequential relief.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Smt. Neelam Dawar vs Shri Nanak Chand (Since Deceased) on 1 November, 2013

The respondent has relied on Sanjay Gupta & Anr. v. Smt. Ved Kanti Gupta and Anr., 1994 (31) DRJ 76 to the effect that a probate or Letter of Administration is not necessary in respect of Will executed in Delhi in regard to property located in Delhi in a suit for Declaration of Title based on an un­probated Will. It is submitted that in a connected eviction petition bearing E. No. 101/11 this Court has already granted leave to contest to the present respondent and the same should be granted in this matter as it is also being sought on similar grounds. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also placed written submissions in regard to his interpretation of the judgments relied upon by the petitioners. The same have been perused.
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh Narula And Ors vs Danesh Mehta on 1 August, 2024

17.This court in various judgements, such as Sanjay Gupta v. Ved Kanti Gupta [MANU/DE/0733/1994], Mrs. Winifred Nora Theophilus vs CS(OS) 476/2021 Page 10 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:03.08.2024 10:27:48 Mr. Lila Deane [AIR 2002 Delhi 6], Rajan Suri Vs. State & Ors. [AIR 2006 Delhi 148] and Hari Singh Vs. Union of India [MANU/DE/0973/2020] has held that for Hindus in Delhi, it is not necessary to probate a will or obtain Letters of Administration before filing a declaratory suit.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Pamela Kumar vs Arun Mohan & Ors. on 27 February, 2012

Defendant No.1 refers to and relies upon the judgment of this Court in Dr. Mangal Dass Kapoor v. Kamla Rani, MANU/DE/1821/2009 in which this Court held a suit for declaration simplicitor to be maintainable following the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr. Mrs. Joginder Kaur Malik v. Malik Anup Singh, AIR 1966 P&H 385 as well as two judgments of this Court in Sanjay Gupta v. Ved Kanti Gupta, 1994 (31) DRJ 76 and Jugdish Chander v. Punjab National Bank, 1998 RLR 254.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - J R Midha - Full Document

Shrimati Poonam Khullar vs Rajan on 27 January, 2012

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the suit property as prayed for? OPP Undisputedly Smt. Amrit Kaur has expired and her death certificate is Ex. PW1/4. Defendant in his WS has taken the preliminary objection that plaintiff must obtain ownership right with regard to suit property by taking Probate of Will (Ex. PW1/2) & then only plaintiff can seek and claim ownership of suit property. This stand of defendant is without any substance in as much as it is a settled proposition of law that obtaining of a Probate is not necessary in case of Will made by a Hindu in the Union Territory of Delhi with regard to property in Delhi. As the law stands in Delhi, it is not necessary to have the Will probated or to have the Letters of Administration obtained [Sanjay Gupta & Anr. Vs. Smt. Ved Kanti Gupta & Anr. 1994 (31) DRJ 76; Capt. (Retd.)
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1