Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Baij Nath vs Vishwanath Pandey And Others on 12 May, 2000 cites

Chhedi Lal And Anr. vs Chhotey Lal on 16 November, 1950

Further it has been held in, Chhedi Lal v. Chhotey Lal. AIR 1951 All 199 : 1951 All U 241 (FB), that the question of the right of co-sharers in respect of Joint land should be kept separate and distinct from the question as to what relief should be granted to a co-sharer, whose right in respect of Joint land has been Invaded by the other co-sharers either by exclusively appropriating and cultivating land or by raising constructions thereon, it depends upon the circumstance of each case as to what particular relief may be granted to a co-sharer who has been deprived of or is being deprived of his share in the joint property."
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 33 - G Hasan - Full Document

Ramchandra Pandurang Sonar ... vs Murlidhar Ramchandra Sonar And Ors on 19 July, 1990

19. On the other hand Mr. Misra had relied on decision in the case of Srinivasa Aiyangar and another u. Narayana Aiyangar. AIR 1920 Mad 162. Relying on the said decision, he had contended that members of joint family in possession cannot file suit for injunction in order to prevent dispossession or entry by other members of the Joint family. The remedy is by way of partition and then to pray for injunction. This proposition is not an absolute proposition. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This decision does not lay down that in each and every case, a suit for injunction cannot be maintained and suit for partition would lie. Principle of law will apply on the facts and circumstances of each case. Abstract law has no bearing unless it is applied to a particular case. Each proposition of law is to be applied according to the facts and circumstances of each case depending on the particular situation as to how the proposition of law could be attracted. The reliefs are claimed on the basis of the facts as well as those as has been found on the basis of the materials on record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - P B Sawant - Full Document

B. Mahabir Singh And Anr. vs B. Sheo Shankar Singh And Ors. on 21 March, 1934

"The respondents learned counsel laid stress especially upon observations in B. Mahabir Singh and another v. B. Shanker Singh and another, in support of his argument that the acts concerned in the Instant case are not acts of possession. No such Inference is possible to be drawn. The subject-matter of dispute in that case was a piece of waste land belonging to the Zamindar and lying between the houses of two sets of ryots. The finding was that by temporary use for occasional necessities of a house holder such as keeping firewood until it is exhausted, bricks until they are used and on the occasion of a marriage once every few years placing chulhas to cook food the plaintiff could not lay claim to exclusive possession in themselves and even if continued for 12 years these acts would not establish adverse possession.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1