Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.78 seconds)
Ganchi Mohmadbhai Kaduji vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 16 November, 2006 cites

Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors on 22 March, 2006

25. I have considered the facts of the case in this behalf. In this case, it was stated that the father of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and thereafter the mother was also the owner of the property and thereafter the cousin of the plaintiff has tried to get the property mutated in his name on the ground that the property was gifted to him by the mother of the plaintiff on 10.08.1987. The said mutation entry was challenged and subsequent order passed thereon was also challenged. Therefore, basic factual aspects of the plaint is controversy has already been set out in this regard. He has further stated that as per Muslim Law also the mother has limited right to gift and against that right she has no right to give property in this regard. The plaintiff has challenged the proceedings by way of amendment and in the plaint revenue proceedings, are also challenged. I have set out the basic facts in the plaint, amendment application and reply of the other side as well as order of the learned Trial Judge. I have also considered the Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ragu Thilak D John (Supra), Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Ors. (Supra), Baldev Singh and Ors. (Supra), in extenso.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 685 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Sampath Kumar vs Ayyakannu And Anr on 13 September, 2002

18.6 Para: 29:- Since the Court has entered into a discussion into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment, we have no other option but to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. Since it is settled law that the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment, the order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law as observed by this Court in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Anr. .
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 460 - Full Document

Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc on 3 August, 2006

25. I have considered the facts of the case in this behalf. In this case, it was stated that the father of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and thereafter the mother was also the owner of the property and thereafter the cousin of the plaintiff has tried to get the property mutated in his name on the ground that the property was gifted to him by the mother of the plaintiff on 10.08.1987. The said mutation entry was challenged and subsequent order passed thereon was also challenged. Therefore, basic factual aspects of the plaint is controversy has already been set out in this regard. He has further stated that as per Muslim Law also the mother has limited right to gift and against that right she has no right to give property in this regard. The plaintiff has challenged the proceedings by way of amendment and in the plaint revenue proceedings, are also challenged. I have set out the basic facts in the plaint, amendment application and reply of the other side as well as order of the learned Trial Judge. I have also considered the Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ragu Thilak D John (Supra), Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Ors. (Supra), Baldev Singh and Ors. (Supra), in extenso.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 542 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next