Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.33 seconds)
Azad Singh S/O Late Sh. H.S. Ram vs Krishna Devi W/O Late Sh. Jagdish ... on 28 February, 2023 cites

Azad Singh & Others vs Smt. Krishna Devi & Others on 15 October, 2012

4. Brief facts of the matter are that late Sh. Jagdish Prasad (husband of respondent no.1 and father of other respondents) during his lifetime had given one room and varanda to the appellant no.1 on leave and license basis in the suit property. Late Sh. Jagdish Prasad was assigned and given the suit property by his father late Sh. Sisram by executing a Will on 15.10.1987 which was also duly registered in the Sub-Registrar Office. The license was revoked by late Sh. Jagdish Prasad during his RCA No.5/17 Azad Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Page no.2 of 17 lifetime but the appellant no.1 delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. In the meanwhile, Sh. Jagdish Prasad passed away in year 2001. Thereafter, the respondents requested the appellant no.1 to handover the portion under his possession i.e. one room and varanda on the ground floor but the appellant no.1 did not vacate the premises. Legal notice dated 09.11.2001 was issued to the appellant no.1 for vacating the said portion. The appellant no.1 also did not let the respondent no.1 to raise super structure on the second floor in her independent portion on 13.11.2001. Therefore, the present suit was filed seeking the reliefs in the abovementioned para no.2.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - L N Mittal - Full Document

Nazir Mohamed vs J.Kamala And Ors. on 27 August, 2020

16. Through the said argument, the appellants have tried to challenge the judgment on the ground that the respondents failed to file the suit for possession within the limitation period as the appellants have been admitted to be in possession of the suit property even before 1987. The appellants have attempted to put on record the defence of adverse possession though not strongly worded. It is pertinent to note that the judgment relied upon Nazir Mohamed Vs. J. Kamla & Ors. (supra) is not applicable to the facts in question. In the said judgment, the appellant / defendant was claiming the title of the property and possession on the basis of registered sale deed for valuable consideration. The parties were not related to each other in the said judgment. In the present case, both the parties have been living together being joint family in the same house WZ - 134, Naraina Village for a long time. It is not expected of family members to remember specific dates of acquiring their respective portions in the property. The appellants are admittedly not a trespasser in the property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 128 - I Banerjee - Full Document

Sant Lal Jain vs Avtar Singh on 12 March, 1985

The Ld. Trial Court has decided the issue no.1 in favour of the respondents stating that since the appellants did not produce any registered title document in support of their ownership over the suit property, the suit based on the claim that the appellants being licensee in the suit property is maintainable and as per the judgment in "Sant Lal Jain Vs. Avtwar Singh" (supra para
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 319 - A Varadarajan - Full Document
1   2 Next