Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.71 seconds)Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs Rajendra Prasad & Anr on 24 February, 2006
In support of the grounds urged above, the learned
counsel for plaintiffs relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. Rajendra
Prasad and another, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 432 . In the said
decision, it was held as under;
Shenbagam vs Kk Rathinavel on 20 January, 2022
In the said decision, it was held as under;
T.L. Nagendra Babu vs Manohar Rao Pawar on 16 December, 2004
16. Keeping in mind the law laid down in the aforecited
decisions, I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties
and their evidence, both oral and documentary. It is not in dispute
that, the suit schedule property was purchased by the father of
defendant No.1 under a Registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.1966.
DW-1 in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that, his father
died in the year 1987 and he married defendant No.2 in the year
1994 and in the said wedlock, the defendants No.3 and 4 were born.
Further admitted that, he is the only son and he is having two sisters
by name Lalithamma and Shivasaralakumari. Immediately after the
death of his father, the khatha in respect of the suit schedule
property came to be changed in his name and he alone obtained
loan from the bank by creating charge over the suit schedule
property. Now it is clear that, even though the father of defendant
15 O.S.No.5193/2014
No.1 died in the year 1987, till date, none of his sisters made any
claim in respect of the suit schedule property. Further, much prior to
the marriage of defendant No.1 with defendant No.2, his father died
and defendant No.1 succeeded the suit schedule property.
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax. Kanpur Etc. ... vs Chander Sen Etc on 16 July, 1986
Since the
suit schedule property was the self acquired property of the father of
defendant No.1, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs.
Chander Sen and others, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 567 and
Yudhister Vs. Ashok Kumar, reported in AIR 1987 SC 558 and
three Judge bench decision in the case of Maktul Vs. Mst.
Manbhari and others, reported in AIR 1958 SC 918, there are
reasons to believe that, at no point of time, the suit schedule
property was Undivided Family Property of defendants No.2 to 4.
Hence. the contention of the defendants holds no water.
Maktul vs Mst. Manbhari & Others on 23 May, 1958
In the said decision,
it was held as under;
Nirmala Anand Appellant vs Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... on 10 May, 2002
In para No.21 of the said decision, it was held
as under;
Desh Raj vs Rohtash Singh on 14 December, 2022
27. It is relevant to mention that, the facts leading to this
case is altogether different from the facts of the case in Desh Raj,
cited above. In the reported decision, there was a forfeiture clause.
But there is no such forfeiture clause in the Agreement, marked at
Ex.P.1. This being the factual position, if the refund of earnest
money is not ordered, it would leads to unjust enrichment. At this
stage, I have gone through the law laid down by the Madras High
Court and High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Fathima Majeed vs Subhapratha Ravikumar on 1 July, 2008
The Division Bench of the
Madras High Court in the case of Fathered Majeed v.
Subhapratha Ravikumar reported in 2008 (4) CTC 494, has
held as under;