Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Lajwanti vs Anjana on 20 May, 2026 cites

Lajwanti & Others vs Priti Devi & Others on 2 June, 2023

19.3 Furthermore, it is also to be noted that in addition to agreement to sell dated 19.02.1978, the respondent also relies on a receipt of a same date of Rs.15000/- towards full and final consideration for the sale of tenanted premises, however, as per the version presented in leave to defend the amount of Rs.15,000/- was paid in the year 1968 as pugari. Therefore, these two versions as to payment of consideration do not coincide. Even otherwise, if it is assumed that the pugari was paid in the year 1968 as asserted in the leave to defend the legal position of the respondent in the suit premises would only remain as a tenant and will not in any manner transcend to the position of an owner. 19.4 Further, by form of corroboration petitioner has filed a judgment titled Lajwanti Vs. Usha Devi & Ors bearing case No. 7424/2016 decided on 25.09.2019. The said suit was preferred by the respondent herein against all the legal heirs of Sh Uday Ram seeking relief of injunction pertaining to the tenanted premises. It is to be noted that petitioner herein was defendant No 9 in the said proceedings. In the said suit while deciding Issue No. 1 i.e., "whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit property? (OPP)" and 3"Whether the plaintiff is a tenant in the suit property?(OPD)", Ld. Court had given a finding to the effect that respondent herein occupied the tenanted premises as a tenant and she was unable to prove her title to the property. Further, the Ld. Court also held that petitioner herein is the true owner of the property by way of Sale Deed of Sh. Uday Ram and a subsequent relinquishment deed by her siblings in her favour. In the said judgment as well Ld. Court refused to accept the version of the respondent herein as the owner of the tenanted premises and held that she is merely a tenant as against the true owner i.e. This is a digitally signed order.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 4 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 21:46:43 either by purchase, gift, exchange or adverse possession as provided in provisions of Transfer of Property Act. The said transaction has to be executed by way of registered deed as per section 17 of The Registration Act. Further, in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "Immovable property can be transferred only by deed of conveyance duly stamped and registered as required by law." Therefore, even otherwise, the plaintiff could not have become owner by virtue of the afore-mentioned document Mark PW-1/D1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1760 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Brij Narayan Shukla (D) Thr. Lrs. vs Sudesh Kumar Alias Suresh Kumar (D) Thr. ... on 2 July, 2014

19.5 The next defence taken by the respondent is creation of independent right on the grounds of adverse possession. This ground also does inspire any confidence with the court as on one hand respondent asserts that she has become owner by execution of title documents in her favour on payment of pugri and on the other hand she asserts that she has attained the status of a trespassers by emphasing that she has the defence of adverse possession in her favour. Further, if this plea is taken to be true its necessary consequence is admission of ownership of the petitioner as adverse possession is not claimed against the entire world but only against a specific person i.e. the known owner of the property. In addition, tenant cannot claim adverse possession against the landlord since their possession is permissive in nature. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled Brij Narayan Shukla (D) through LRs Vs. Sudesh Kumar Suresh Kumar (D) through LRS & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 17that;
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1