Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Bai Chanchal & Ors vs Syed Jalaluddin & Ors on 11 September, 1970
27 It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as Bai Chancal and others, Vs. Syed Jalaluddin & Ors.
reported as AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1081, as under:
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 15 May, 2009
23 Perusal of the record further shows that defenadant no. 4 &
5 have placed on record a photocopy of the Lease Deed dated 6.9.56 in
favour of Sh. Ramchand B. Tahalramani and a gift deed dated executed
by Sh. Ramchand B. Tahalramani in favour of his wife Smt. Sati
Tahalramani on 27.7.59. They have also filed a letter dated 22.4.58
issued from the office of the housing and rent officer cum Additional
Settlement Commissioner, for grant of permission to transfer the suit
property by Sh. Ramchand B. Tahalramani in favour of Smt. Sati
SUIT NO. 217/2011 Page 11 of 20
Tahalramani. A copy of 'Collaboration Agreement' dated 20.9.88,
executed by Smt. Sati Ramchand B. Tahalramani with M/s Pushpa
Builders is also on record. A copy of the General Power of Attorney
executed by Smt. Sati Tahalramani dated 20.9.88, in favour of M/s
Pushpa Builders Ltd.,(defendant no. 4, herein) is also on record. A copy
of the affidavit executed by Smt. Sati Tahalramani dated 20.9.88 is also
placed on record. Perusal of all these documents indicates that Sh.
Ramchand B. Tahalramani was having the lease hold rights in the suit
property and even if the contentions of the Ld. counsel for the
defendants/applicants are accepted, at this stage, it can be safely held that
only the lease hold rights could be transferred by Sh. Ramchand B.
Tahalramani, in favour of Smt. Sati B. Tahalramani vide gift deed dated
27.7.59. The execution of agreement of collaboration dated 20.9.88 and
the General Power of Attorney, the affidavit and other relied documents,
in the considered opinion of this court, does not transfer any title or
ownership rights in favour of defendant no. 4 & 5.
24 It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as "Suraj Lamp & Industries Private Limited Vs. State of
Haryana and another", reported as, (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases
363, as under:
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Th. Lr.Smt. ... vs Rajinder Singh & Ors on 11 July, 2006
28 It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as Pushpa Devi Bhagat(D) Th. LR. Smt. Sadhna Rai Vs.
Rajinder Singh & Ors. reported as 2006 AIR (SC) 2628, as under:
H.C. Shastri vs Dolphin Canpack (P) Ltd. on 15 July, 1997
25 The second contention of the Ld. counsels for the
applicants has remained that the compromise was not arrived at between
the plaintiffs and the present applicants and therefore, no decree can be
passed on the basis of the said family settlement against the present
SUIT NO. 217/2011 Page 13 of 20
applicants. In the considered opinion of this court, it was not necessary
for the plaintiffs or the defendant no. 1 to 3 to join the other defendants
of the applicants, as a party to the compromise or the family settlement.
The plaintiffs or the defendant no. 1 to 3 were under no obligation to join
the applicants or the other defendants as a party to their family
settlement. Even otherwise, the present applicants are not their family
members and therefore, they cannot be made a party to the family
settlement. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in case titled as H.C. Shastri Vs. Dolphin Canpack (P) Ltd. &
Ors. reported as 67(1997) Delhi Law Times 652 , as under:
1