Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.65 seconds)
Ram Lal(Dead) And 5 Others vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi And Another on 13 February, 2025 cites

Sk. Golam Lalchnad vs Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu ... on 12 December, 2022

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of SK. Golam Lalchand Vs. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes and Others (Supra), has held that the suit property which is undivided is left with the co-owners to proceed in accordance with law to get their shares determined and demarcated before making a transfer. It is of no assistance to learned counsel for the respondent.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Balak Singh vs State Of Bihar on 8 August, 2014

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Another (Supra), has held that where the Consolidation Court has already passed an order recognizing the rights of one of the parties is not barred by Section 37 of the Consolidation Act and that the Civil Court is not competent to either ignore or reverse the order passed by the Consolidation Officer once it has attained finality. It is of no assistance to learned counsel for the respondent.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. and Others; (2008) 4 SCC 594, has held that in a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. The relevant paragraph 15 is extracted here-in-below.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 2311 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande vs Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta . on 6 February, 2019

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande Vs. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta and Another; (2020) 19 SCC 119, has held that the plaintiff has to prove actual possession for grant of permanent injunction and permanent injunction can be granted only to a person who is in actual possession of the property. The burden of proof lies upon the first respondent-plaintiff to prove that he was in actual and physical possession of the property on the date of suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 39 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1