Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.40 seconds)The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu ... vs Nattanmai K.S. Ellappa Mudaliar And ... on 30 January, 1987
He also refers to Ex.D3- Owner's Declaration dated
28.5.1994 and points out that an extent of 1706 Sft. area in
the rear portion is meant for the exclusive use of the owner of
apartment No.003 i.e., defendant No.1. He has relied on the
judgment in the case of THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, HINDU
RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT, SALEM AND
ORS., Vs. NATTAMAI K.S. ELLAPPA MUDALIAR AND ORS. -
AIR 1987 MADRAS 187, to persuade the court that though
16
the defence of form of suit being bad as it was filed as if it
was a representative suit was not taken in the written
statement, such a plea could be raised, at any stage, because
it is the duty of the court to consider the same. He also
points out that since it is a pure question of law, it can be
raised at any stage.
State Of Punjab vs Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar And Anr on 18 December, 1998
Reliance is placed on the judgment in
the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. Vs.
Dr.R.N.BHATNAGAR AND ANOTHER - AIR 1999 SC 647 in this
regard. It is also contended by him that, as it is a
jurisdictional point, if a judgment is rendered without
jurisdiction it will be a nullity, even if the parties consented
for such judgment. Reliance is placed on the judgment in
the case of DEVA SAHAYAM (DEAD) BY LRs. Vs.
P.SAVITHRAMMA AND ORS (2005) 7 SCC 653 in this regard.
He also points out that in the absence of pleadings asserting
easementary right and seeking necessary relief with regard to
the suit schedule property for common use of the apartment
owners evidence could not have been permitted to be
adduced on these aspects.
Trojan & Co. Ltd vs Rm. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar on 20 March, 1953
In this connection, reliance is
placed on the judgment in the case of M/s.TROJAN AND CO.,
Vs. NAGAPPA CHETTIYAR - AIR 1953 SC 235; BONDAR SINGH
17
& ORS. Vs. NIHAL SINGH & ORS - ILR 2003 KAR 2253; and
in the case of D.RAMANATHA GUPTA Vs. S.RAZAACK - AIR
1982 KAR 314. He further points out that Ex.P19 though
marked in evidence is subject to proof and in the absence of
any evidence to prove the same, mere marking will not
dispense with its proof.
Bondar Singh & Ors vs Nihal Singh & Ors on 4 March, 2003
In this connection, reliance is
placed on the judgment in the case of M/s.TROJAN AND CO.,
Vs. NAGAPPA CHETTIYAR - AIR 1953 SC 235; BONDAR SINGH
17
& ORS. Vs. NIHAL SINGH & ORS - ILR 2003 KAR 2253; and
in the case of D.RAMANATHA GUPTA Vs. S.RAZAACK - AIR
1982 KAR 314. He further points out that Ex.P19 though
marked in evidence is subject to proof and in the absence of
any evidence to prove the same, mere marking will not
dispense with its proof.
D. Ramanatha Gupta vs S. Razaack on 16 February, 1982
In this connection, reliance is
placed on the judgment in the case of M/s.TROJAN AND CO.,
Vs. NAGAPPA CHETTIYAR - AIR 1953 SC 235; BONDAR SINGH
17
& ORS. Vs. NIHAL SINGH & ORS - ILR 2003 KAR 2253; and
in the case of D.RAMANATHA GUPTA Vs. S.RAZAACK - AIR
1982 KAR 314. He further points out that Ex.P19 though
marked in evidence is subject to proof and in the absence of
any evidence to prove the same, mere marking will not
dispense with its proof.
Sait Tarajee Khimchand And Ors. vs Yelamarti Satyam Alias Satteyya And ... on 19 April, 1971
He has referred to the judgment in
the case of SAIT TARAJEE KHIMCHAND & ORS. Vs.
YELAMARTI SATYAM & ORS - AIR 1971 SC 1865 in this
connection. It is also submitted by him that the declaration
made by the plaintiff wherein he has conceded the rights of
defendant No.1 over the vacant area estops him from
asserting to the contrary.
B.L. Sreedhar & Ors vs K.M. Munireddy (Dead) And Ors on 5 December, 2002
He has also placed reliance on the
judgment in the case of B.L.SREEDHAR & ORS Vs.
K.M.MUNIREDDY (DEAD) & ORS - (2003) 2 SCC 355. It is his
further contention that as the plaintiff has himself admitted
that the defendant No.1 has been in possession of the
property for the last 13 years, he could not have maintained
a suit for injunction as no such suit for mere injunction
could lie in the absence of proof of possession.
Jemma vs Raghu on 21 July, 1976
In this
regard, he has placed reliance on the judgments in the case
of JEMMA Vs. RAGHU - AIR 1977 ORISSA 12; N.UMAPATHY
18
Vs. B.V.MUNIYAPPA - AIR 1997 SC 2467 and in the case of
ABDUL LATIF & ANR. Vs. MAHADEO LAL & ORS - AIR 1976
PATNA 229.
Sr. N. N, Umapathy vs B.V. Muniyappa on 25 March, 1997
In this
regard, he has placed reliance on the judgments in the case
of JEMMA Vs. RAGHU - AIR 1977 ORISSA 12; N.UMAPATHY
18
Vs. B.V.MUNIYAPPA - AIR 1997 SC 2467 and in the case of
ABDUL LATIF & ANR. Vs. MAHADEO LAL & ORS - AIR 1976
PATNA 229.