Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)
Hunta Ram vs Mohan Singh And Others on 9 March, 1994 cites

Atam Prakash vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 27 February, 1986

In order to understand the meaning of the words 'other co-sharers' in Section 15(1)(b) we have to read the Act as it stood before the decision in Atam Prakash's case (AIR 1986 SC 859) (supra). It is seen that the expression 'other co-sharers' in clause 'Fourthly' of Section 15(1)(b) of the Act refers to only those co-sharers who do not fall under clause 'First' or 'Secondly' or Thirdly' of Section 15(1)(b) of the Act. Since the petitioners admittedly fall either under clause 'First' or under clause 'Secondly' of Section 15(1)(b) of the Act they are clearly outside the scope of clause 'Fourthly'. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim the right of pre-emption under clause 'Fourthly'. We do not, therefore, find any substance in this contention which was urged for the first time before the High Court. The suit was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the High Court holding that the petitioners were no longer entitled to any relief under the Act. This petition, therefore, fails and it is dismissed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 140 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Bhikha Ram vs Ram Sarup And Ors on 31 October, 1991

The view taken by this Court in Chander v. Chao Khan, 1980 Rev LR 126 and Nand Ram v. Pehlad Singh, 1979 Pun LJ 307, is no more a good law in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court in Bhika Ram's case (supra). Since the matter has been finally settled by the apex Court, I do not think it proper to refer the case to a larger Bench. The judgments rendered by this Court in Chander's and Nand Ram's cases become per incuriam.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 12 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1