Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)Section 32G in The Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Prakash S. Akotkar And Others vs Mansoorkha Gulabkha And Others on 26 July, 1995
30. The title and possession of a co-owner has been held to be co-
extensive with the interest of other co-owners. That being the
position, injunction of the nature granted by the Appellate Court
restraining the Defendants from even entering the suit property could
not have been passed. The effect of the injunction is to exclude the
Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 from exercising their rights as co-owners. A
learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Prakash S. Akotkar and
Others vs Mansoorkha Gulabkha and others(supra) has held unless
ouster is proved, other co-owners cannot claim injunction of the
nature so as to exclude the other co-owners from exercising their
Harish 18 of 21
SA-319-2012.odt
right as co-owners.
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
The Punjab Tenancy Rules
Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018
27. The Apex Court in the case of B. R. Patil vs Tulsabi Savkar
Harish 16 of 21
SA-319-2012.odt
(supra) has noted in paragraph No. 27 as under :
T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs N. Madhava Rao on 5 April, 2019
31. The decision of the Apex Court in T.Ramalingeswara Rao vs N.
Madhava Rao & Ors (supra) relied upon by Mr. Gole is squarely
applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case injunction was
sought against the purchasers of undivided share in joint family
property. The Apex Court held that in paragraph 16 as under: