Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Bhagwandas Parsadilal vs Surajmal And Anr. on 24 December, 1960
This court in the matter of Bhagwandas Parsadilal Vs.
Surajmal and another, reported in AIR 1961 MP 237 in similar
circumstances has held that when a tenant continues in
possession in his capacity as tenant and not in part performance
of contract and the suit for specific performance against the
owner is filed then in the suit for eviction, the tenant cannot setup
prior agreement to sell as valid defence to suit.
D.S. Parvathamma vs A. Srinivasan on 31 March, 2003
The Supreme
court in the matter of D.S. Parvathamma Vs. A.Srinivasan,
reported in 2003(II) MPWN 214 while approving the said
judgment has held that having entered into possession as a
tenant and having continued to remain in possession in that
capacity, he cannot be permitted to say that by reason of the
agreement to sell his possession was no longer that of a tenant.
These judgments are relevant in support of respondent's
3
submission that the proceedings in the suit for specific
performance are different from the eviction proceedings.
Poonamchand vs Murti Madanmohanji And Ors. on 3 April, 2007
Counsel for respondent has also placed reliance upon the
judgment of this court in the matter of Poonamchand Vs. Murti
Madanmohanji and others, reported in 2007(3) MPLJ 340 but
that was a case where it is found that the identity of the
jurisdiction, subject matter of suit and parties to the litigation were
substantially the same but that is not the present case.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajesh vs Manoj Kumari And Another on 29 November, 2013
He has
also placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this
court in the matter of Rajesh Singh and others, Vs. Manoj
Kumar, reported in 2009(4) MPLJ 458, but in that case, it has
been held that whole of the subject matter in both the
proceedings should be identical for attracting Section 10 of CPC.
In that case, after filing the suit for declaration, the eviction suit
was filed by the landlord seeking eviction under Section 12(1)(a),
Smt.Shahshi Pandey vs Raju Tripathi Judgement Given By: ... on 26 March, 2013
As against this, counsel for respondent has rightly placed
reliance upon judgment of this court in the matter of Shashi
Pandey Vs. B.K. Choubey, reported in 2008(4) MPLJ 507,
wherein it has been held that the application under Section 10 of
the CPC what has to be appreciated is whether the matter in both
the suits and particularly in a subsequent suit is "substantially in
issue" so that the subsequent suit has to be stayed.
1