Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.22 seconds)Section 19 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Section 19 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Prem Singh & Ors vs Birbal & Ors on 2 May, 2006
The respondent has alleged that the Wills Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3 have
not been proved according to law and the two attesting witnesses namely Sh. Deepak Chand
and Sh. Gopi have not been examined by the petitioner. Respondent's objection is not
sustainable. Both the Wills are Registered Wills and there is presumption in favor of the
RC ARC 07/20 Page no. 5/20
registered documents that such documents are validly executed. Reference may be had to
cases Prem Singh v. Birbal, AIR 2006 SC 3608; Abdul Rahim v. Abdul Zabar, AIR 2010 SC
Abdul Rahim & Ors vs Sk.Abdul Zabar & Ors on 6 March, 2009
The respondent has alleged that the Wills Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3 have
not been proved according to law and the two attesting witnesses namely Sh. Deepak Chand
and Sh. Gopi have not been examined by the petitioner. Respondent's objection is not
sustainable. Both the Wills are Registered Wills and there is presumption in favor of the
RC ARC 07/20 Page no. 5/20
registered documents that such documents are validly executed. Reference may be had to
cases Prem Singh v. Birbal, AIR 2006 SC 3608; Abdul Rahim v. Abdul Zabar, AIR 2010 SC
Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Ors vs Ramakant Eknath Jajoo on 23 March, 2009
211. Besides the presumption on a registered document that it is validly executed, there is
also a presumption that the "transaction is a genuine one" (Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain
v. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo, 2009- 5 SCC 713.). The onus of proof, thus, would be on a
person who questions the same. In this case, respondent has not produced any evidence to
show that the Will Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3 are not genuine documents and the
respondent has failed to rebut the presumption. In any case, the present matter is not about
the genuiness or otherwise of the above said Wills and the petitioner was not required to
prove these Wills by calling the attesting witnesses. Thus, the apparent conclusion is that
petitioner is the owner of the property which comprises of the tenanted shop.
Sriram Pasricha vs Jagannath & Ors on 24 August, 1976
"32. It is no longer res integra and is settled by this Court in
Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath and Ors., (1976) 4 SCC 184,
Dhannalal vs. Kalawatibai and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 16 and
India Umberalla Manufacturing Co. and Ors. vs. Bhagabandei
Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) and Ors.
(2004) 3 SCC 178 that a suit for eviction of a tenant can be
maintained by one of the co-owners and it would be no
defence to the tenant to question the maintainability of the suit
on the ground that the other co-owners were not joined as
parties to the suit. The judicially propounded proposition is
that when the property forming the subject matter of eviction
RC ARC 07/20 Page no. 6/20
proceedings is owned by several co-owners, every co-owner
owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with
others and thus it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or
a fractional owner of the property and that he can alone
maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant without joining the
other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object."
Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai And Ors on 8 July, 2002
"32. It is no longer res integra and is settled by this Court in
Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath and Ors., (1976) 4 SCC 184,
Dhannalal vs. Kalawatibai and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 16 and
India Umberalla Manufacturing Co. and Ors. vs. Bhagabandei
Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) and Ors.
(2004) 3 SCC 178 that a suit for eviction of a tenant can be
maintained by one of the co-owners and it would be no
defence to the tenant to question the maintainability of the suit
on the ground that the other co-owners were not joined as
parties to the suit. The judicially propounded proposition is
that when the property forming the subject matter of eviction
RC ARC 07/20 Page no. 6/20
proceedings is owned by several co-owners, every co-owner
owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with
others and thus it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or
a fractional owner of the property and that he can alone
maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant without joining the
other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object."