Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.49 seconds)
Memo Of Parties vs Sh. P.S. Mahajan on 31 March, 2010 cites

Rama Kanta Jain vs M.S. Jain And Others on 24 March, 1999

It has been observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rama Kanta Jain v. M.S. Jain, (Delhi) , 1999 AIR (Delhi) 281 , O.S. Mahajan Vs. P.S. Mahajan 21 Suit No. 386/06 ''The defendants claim themselves to be the owners in possession over the disputed property on the ground of their having purchased the same from the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 15,500/- (vide their reply notice dated October 12, 1984, Ex. P22 to the notice from the plaintiff). How the defendants can now be allowed to plead to the contrary that they have become owners of the disputed property by adverse possession. It has already been observed above that a person who traces his possession to a lawful title can never become an owner by adverse possession. How a person, who claims himself to be the true owner of a particular property, can claim to be the owner of the same by adverse possession.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954

The Supreme Court in Kiran Singh Vs Chaman Paswan ,AIR 1954 SUPREME COURT 340 ,while deciding the effect of raising the issue of jurisdiction for the first time in Appellate Court referred to decision of the Privy Council in the case of Rachappa Subrao Jadhav v. Shidappa Venkatrao Jadhav, (4) LR 46IA 24, wherein the Privy Council held that the objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to be "the most technical of technicalities" and observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1029 - Full Document

Rachappa Subrao Jadhav Desai vs Shidappa Venkatrao Jadhav Desai on 3 December, 1918

Although in the case discussed above, the issue of jurisdiction was taken at appellate stage but in the present case it is argued by the defence Counsel that this court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present case however there is no such specific plea in the written statement as referred above. Even if it is presumed that by averring that'' the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction '', the defendant is challenging the jurisdiction of this Court , then also I am not convinced by by the defence argument because the defendant has not taken the objection of raising the issue of court fees and jurisdiction in the first instance and this objection was for the first time added in written statement in the year 200 o when already 13 years had passed in the trial of this case.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Smt. P.N. Wankudre vs C.S. Wankudre And Ors. on 9 January, 2002

Similarly the defence counsel has also relief upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Smt. P.N. Wankudre Vs. C.S. Wankudre AIR 2002 Bombay 129 wherein it was observed that "Informal family arrangement arrived at whereby various members of the family are put in possession and enjoyment of different property was given effect to irrespective of the fact that the partition deed was unregistered on the ground of estoppel.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - S J Vazifdar - Full Document

Hari Shankar Singhania & Ors vs Gaur Hari Singhania & Ors on 4 April, 2006

O.S. Mahajan Vs. P.S. Mahajan 19 Suit No. 386/06 To give effect to their contention that property had been transferred through settlement deed, and the Courts should give due weight to the family settlements in family matters , defence counsel has relied upon Hari Shankar Singhania & Ors Vs. Gaur Hari Singhania & Ors. 2006 (88) DRJ 1 Supreme Court where Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "The family settlement is treated differently from any other formal commercial settlement as such settlement in the eyes of laws ensures peace and goodwill among the family members. Such settlements are governed by a special equity principle where the terms are fare and bonafide, taking into account the wellbeing of the family.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 132 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1   2 Next