Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)
Muniyappa S/O Nagappa vs N.Narayana S/O Nagappa on 15 May, 2020 cites

Sita Ram Bhama vs Ramvatar Bhama on 23 March, 2018

However, such unregistered document of partition can be looked into only for the limited purpose of establishing the severance of status and the nature of possession as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sita Ram Bhama vs Ramvatar Bhama reported in 2018 (15) SCC 130. In the present case, though Exs-D26 and D27 were not stamped, the Court directed the collection of duty and penalty after impounding it. The defendant has paid the duty and penalty as determined. Even otherwise, a perusal of Exs-D26 and D-27 indicates that the said documents were a record of a partition and does not indicate that the land in Sy.No.63 was partitioned by that document. Notwithstanding the above, it is relevant to note that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for a declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit property based on the grant of land 26 in his name. The non-registration of Exs.D26 and D27 would have impacted if the defendant was before the Trial Court for declaration of his title in the suit property based on the unregistered partition. Now that this Court has held that there are clear circumstances which indicate that the land in Sy.No.63 of Chunchegowdanahosahalli was cultivated by all the members of the family and that they possessed an interest in unity, the plaintiff cannot usurp the entire land unto himself and deprive the other members of the family of their right in the property of the family.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 81 - A Bhushan - Full Document
1   2 Next