Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.97 seconds)
Mohinder Singh Matharoo vs Sh. Yadav Chand Sharma (Deceased) on 7 January, 2013 cites

Rajeswari Amma And Another vs Joseph And Another on 10 January, 1995

3. It is argued that cause of action of the eviction petition was joint and common so if the respondent no.4 Umesh Chand Sharma cannot substitute respondent no.2 Smt. Basanti Devi then eviction petition as a whole goes. Reliance is placed upon State of Punjab Vs Nathu Ram AIR 1962 SC 89, Babu Sukhram Singh Vs Ram Dular Singh AIR 1973 SC 204, Rajeshwari Amma Vs Joseph 1995 (2) SCC 159, Panna Vs State of Karnataka 1996 (1) SCC 291, Appa Rao Bahadur Vs Secretary of State AIR 1975 MAD 389, Rangaraju Vs The Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council Kalar 1998 AIHC 2037, Muddada Channa Vs G. Veer Bhadra Rao AIR 1979 AP 253 and Pasu Palati Vs Motor & General Traders AIR 1975 SC 1409.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Ishwar Dass Rajput vs Chaman Parkash Puri And Anr. on 11 January, 1992

13. It is argued that right of recovery of possession can be exercised by successor in interest either by operation of law or by act of the parties. In the present case, the transfers have been made in favour of respondent no.4 Umesh Chand Sharma by family members who are real uncle and aunt of respondent no.4 Umesh Chand Sharma. Therefore, these are not even transfers in the real sense of the term and the tenant under no circumstances can be allowed to impugn the same. Reliance is placed upon Ishwar Dass Rajput v. Chaman Parkash Puri 1991 (44) DLT 639; Kamal Tanan (deceased) by LRs v. M.L. Vashisht (deceased) by LRs 2001 (9) SCC 263 and Prahalad Singh Rekhi v. Bhawani Devi 2004 (113) DLT 137.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Prahlad Singh Rekhi vs Smt. Bhawani Devi And Anr. on 29 July, 2004

13. It is argued that right of recovery of possession can be exercised by successor in interest either by operation of law or by act of the parties. In the present case, the transfers have been made in favour of respondent no.4 Umesh Chand Sharma by family members who are real uncle and aunt of respondent no.4 Umesh Chand Sharma. Therefore, these are not even transfers in the real sense of the term and the tenant under no circumstances can be allowed to impugn the same. Reliance is placed upon Ishwar Dass Rajput v. Chaman Parkash Puri 1991 (44) DLT 639; Kamal Tanan (deceased) by LRs v. M.L. Vashisht (deceased) by LRs 2001 (9) SCC 263 and Prahalad Singh Rekhi v. Bhawani Devi 2004 (113) DLT 137.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 11 - R S Sodhi - Full Document

Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs Jai Prakash University And Ors on 24 July, 2001

In the light of Hukum Chand's case (Supra) and Dhrundhar Prasad Singh's case (Supra) relied upon on behalf of Respondent no.4 Umesh Chand Sharma the trial of the suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter of the lis has devolved upon another during its pendency and the proceedings should be continued for disposal of proceedings on merit by way of adjudication of dispute between the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 319 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Santosh Kakkar & Ors. vs Ram Prasad & Ors. on 6 January, 1998

The application was filed by respondent no.4 Umesh Chand Sharma u/O 22 R.10 CPC alleging that one of the co-owners of premises in question Smt. Basanti Devi has transferred her share in the property in his favour and another co-owner Sh. Ram Swaroop Joshi (his real uncle) has bequeathed his share in the property by Will dated 11.02.1998 in his favour. Therefore, he should be substituted in their place and this application was allowed by Ld ARC vide impugned order dated 17.03.2007. It is not disputed that late Sh. Ram Swaroop Joshi who executed will with regard to his 1/3rd share in the premises by will dated 11.02.1998 has expired. The question is raised on behalf of appellant that the probate or letter of administration of the will was not taken by the appellant at the time of filing the application so he Mohinder Singh Matharoo V. Yadav Chand Sharma and ors 7 cannot substitute late Sh. Ram Swaroop Joshi but this plea of the appellant has no force since it is already clarified by our Hon'ble High Court in Santosh Kakkar and ors Vs. Ram Prasad and Ors 71 (1998) DLT 147 that for will executed in Delhi no probate is required. The executor or legatee can establish his right without seeking probate. Therefore, the impugned order so far as the substitution of Sh. Umesh Chand Sharma in place of Sh. Ram Swaroop Joshi is concerned it cannot be impugned by the appellant/tenant and the finding of Ld ARC in the impugned order in this regard needs to be confirmed.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 43 - J B Goel - Full Document

Roshan Lal Devi Dass And Ors. vs Man Mohan Chopra on 21 December, 1970

In the light of this interpretation in Roshan Lal Devi Dass's case (Supra) the Madan Lal's case (Supra) does not help the appellant nor the authorities from other High Court i.e Ranjeet Singh's case (supra), Ram Tehal Modi's case's (supra) and Khatri Kasam Sidi's case (Supra) relied upon by appellant would help the appellant in the face of Roshan Lal Devi Dass's case (Supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next