Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.73 seconds)Chinthamani Ammal vs Nandagopal Gounder And Anr on 20 February, 2007
29. Further, in the case of In Chinthamani Ammal vs. Nandagopal
Gounder and Anr. (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 163), it has
been held, that, "In law there exists a presumption in regard to
the continuance of a joint family. The party which raises a plea
of partition is to prove the same. Even separate possession of
portion of the property by the cosharers itself would not lead to
a presumption of partition. Several other factors are required to
be considered therefore."
Mukhtiar Singh vs Tara Singh And Ors. on 25 July, 2000
33. The Plaintiff is also seeking an injunction restraining the
defendant from obstructing the plaintiff from constructing over
the suit property i.e. the common wall to the extent of his
rights. It is clear that a co-owner who is in possession of his
share of the property can enjoy the same. He can also raise
construction on the property of which he is in possession if the
same does not lead to ouster of the other co-owners. The above
mentioned principle was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of
Punjab and Harayna in the case of Mukhtiar Singh vs Tara
Singh And Ors. (2000 126 PLR 791). The relevant portion at
para no. 11 is reproduced below:
Section 103 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Veeru Parshad Gupta vs Jogeshwari Devi on 25 July, 2018
In the case of Veeru Parshad Gupta vs
Jogeshwari Devi (RFA No. 586/2018, 25 July, 2018), the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows:
1