Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)Williams vs Lourdusamy & Anr on 22 April, 2008
Even otherwise the plea on part of
performance of contract to protect possession of
prospective vendee cannot be taken by the plaintiffs
because the right given under Section 53 (A) of Transfer
of property Act 1882 can be used as a shield and not as
a weapon as held in authority titled as Williams v.
Lourdusamy & Anr. (supra). The authorities cited by
counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts
of the present case. Therefore, the appellant cannot
derive any benefit by citing aforesaid authorities."
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
The argument as raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants is without any merit in view of the judgment of
this Court in Sukhwant Singh Versus Divisional Forest Officer and
another 2009 (3) PLR 433 wherein after relying upon various judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Premji Ratansey Shah and others v.
Union of India and others (1994) 5 SCC 547, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable
and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others (2004) 3
SCC 137, Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza (1999) 4 SCC 403,
Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and others v. Pune Municipal corporation
and another (1995) 3 SCC 33 , Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A.Viswam
(Dead) by LRs.
Prataprai N. Kothari vs John Braganza on 4 May, 1999
The argument as raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants is without any merit in view of the judgment of
this Court in Sukhwant Singh Versus Divisional Forest Officer and
another 2009 (3) PLR 433 wherein after relying upon various judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Premji Ratansey Shah and others v.
Union of India and others (1994) 5 SCC 547, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable
and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others (2004) 3
SCC 137, Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza (1999) 4 SCC 403,
Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and others v. Pune Municipal corporation
and another (1995) 3 SCC 33 , Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A.Viswam
(Dead) by LRs.
Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke & Ors vs The Puna Municipal Corpn. & Anr on 23 January, 1995
The argument as raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants is without any merit in view of the judgment of
this Court in Sukhwant Singh Versus Divisional Forest Officer and
another 2009 (3) PLR 433 wherein after relying upon various judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Premji Ratansey Shah and others v.
Union of India and others (1994) 5 SCC 547, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable
and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others (2004) 3
SCC 137, Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza (1999) 4 SCC 403,
Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and others v. Pune Municipal corporation
and another (1995) 3 SCC 33 , Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A.Viswam
(Dead) by LRs.
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs A. Viswam (Dead) By Lrs on 9 February, 1996
The argument as raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants is without any merit in view of the judgment of
this Court in Sukhwant Singh Versus Divisional Forest Officer and
another 2009 (3) PLR 433 wherein after relying upon various judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Premji Ratansey Shah and others v.
Union of India and others (1994) 5 SCC 547, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable
and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others (2004) 3
SCC 137, Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza (1999) 4 SCC 403,
Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and others v. Pune Municipal corporation
and another (1995) 3 SCC 33 , Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A.Viswam
(Dead) by LRs.
Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors on 4 May, 1993
(1996) 8 SCC 259, Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (1993) 3SCC 161, it has been held that an
injunction cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiffs who are in an
unauthorized possession and against the defendants who are the true
owners of the suit land. In the above referred judgments, it is clearly made
out that it is the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a
trespasser cannot seek injunction against the true owner though he may
have a right to protect his possession against the whole world.
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 49 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Krishna Kumar Birla vs Rajendra Singh Lodha & Ors on 31 March, 2008
"After going through the record carefully and considering
the judgment of learned trial Court, I have come to the
conclusion that the maintainability of suit may be
decided while framing preliminary issue, in view of
authority titled as Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra
Singh Lodha & Ors (supra), it is settled principle of law
that agreement confers no title. In the present suit
plaintiffs have claimed ownership and wants to get them
declared as such, except agreement no pleadings have
been given by the plaintiffs regarding their title. In these
RSA No.3107 of 2009 (O&M) 3
circumstances, it is established that the plaintiffs cannot
claim declaration of title on basis of the agreement to
sell. As far as question of adverse possession is
concerned, the plaintiffs have claimed that they came
into possession by way of agreement, therefore, the
possession of plaintiffs for the suit land is permissive as
alleged. Therefore, the plea of adverse possession is
not available to the plaintiffs. As far as relief of
injunction is concerned, the plaintiffs can claim under
Section 53 (A) of Transfer of Property Act but the
plaintiffs have no where pleaded in their plaint regarding
their readiness and willingness and they have also not
pleaded as to why sale deed was not executed after a
lapse of about couple of years. Therefore, in absence of
pleadings of readiness and willingness, the suit is not
maintainable.