Sardar Malkiat Singh vs Kanwaljit Kaur & Others on 12 March, 2010
The
same view has been taken in Sardar Malkiyat Singh Vs Kanwaljit
Kaur(Supra). It has been further held that "the shared household"
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Smt. Abha Arora vs Angela Sharma And Anr. on 18 May, 2007
In Abha Arora Vs Angela Sharma & Anr
148 (2008) DLT 506 the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the
property and she filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory
injunction against D-1, daughter-in-law and D-2, son for restraining
them from entering the property and to direct D-1 to permanently
quit the suit property. The provisions of section 18 of the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 entitling a wife to live
separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to
maintenance and also the definitions of "domestic relationship"
Rajinder Singh Saluja vs Sarbjyot Kaur Saluja & Ors on 14 May, 2009
18. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Rajinder Singh Saluja
Vs Sarbjyot Kaur Saluja & others 159(2009)DLT 629 and
Davender Lal Mehta Vs Dharmender Mehta AIR 2009 DEL 189
(copy not supplied).
Davender Lal Mehta vs Sh. Dharmender Mehta & Anr. on 14 May, 2009
18. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Rajinder Singh Saluja
Vs Sarbjyot Kaur Saluja & others 159(2009)DLT 629 and
Davender Lal Mehta Vs Dharmender Mehta AIR 2009 DEL 189
(copy not supplied).
Shumita Didi Sandhu vs Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Others on 26 October, 2010
In Shumita Didi Sandhu vs Sanjay
Singh Sandhu & Ors 2007(96) DRJ 697 copy of which has been
supplied by the counsel for the plaintiff after the conclusion of
25
C.S No. 743/11/09
RAMA SHARDA VS PAMELLA SHARDA
arguments it has been held that the wife can claim right of residence
only against her husband and not her in-laws and that in the house
belonging to the parents of the husband neither the wife nor son can
claim any right to stay.
Delhi Gate Service Private Ltd. vs Caltex (India) Ltd. on 31 January, 1962
C.S No. 743/11/09
RAMA SHARDA VS PAMELLA SHARDA
Benny Mathew,reported in VII(2005)SLT394=IV(2005)CLT
1(SC)=(2005)7SCC 667 and decision in Delhi Gate Services
Pvt. Ltd v. Caltex (India) Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 PandH
Oriental Trading Corporation vs Punjab Skin Trading Co. on 16 July, 1976
370.
30 The Second contention of the defendant No. 1 on
valuation and payment of the Court fee is also liable to be
rejected. A suit for permanent and mandatory injunction can
be valued by the plaintiff in his/her discretion subject to the
discretion not being whimsical. Suit is not required to be
valued at the market value of the Property. Reference in this
regard can be made to the decision of this court in the case
of Oriental Trading Corporation v. Punjab Spin Trading
Company reported in 1976 RLR 650."