Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)
Keshav Chander Thakur & Anr. vs Krishan Chander & Ors. on 19 May, 2014 cites

Sarjubhai Kantilal Patel And Ors. vs Bhikhubhai Maganbhai Patel And Ors. on 28 June, 2000

10. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the appellant that the decree passed by the Jammu Court dated March 30, 1976 is null and void as no guardian was appointed for the appellant who was then a minor. For the said purpose the learned Single Judge relied upon Order XXXII Rule 3A CPC and the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High RFA(OS)86/2013 Page 4 of 21 Court in the case reported as AIR 1974 P&H 315 Amrik Singh & Anr. vs. Karnail Singh & Ors. and judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case reported as (2001)2GLR 1348, Sarjubhai Kantilal Patel vs. Bikhubhai Maganbhai Patel. The court was further of the view that the status which had prevailed in the family for the last 35 years should not be permitted to be changed on technicalities. It also noted that the appellant has not been able to dispute that he has been dealing with the Jammu property exclusively as absolute owner without interference from other family members and that similarly other family members have also been dealing with the portion of the property which fell to their share as per family settlement.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Parmesh Chander vs Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary And Anr. on 6 November, 2006

4. Respondent No.1 filed the written statement in the suit stating that there is gross suppression of material facts by the appellants in the plaint. It is stated that on April 21, 1975 Respondent No.3 herein filed a suit for partition titled Suresh Chander versus Lt. Col. Dina Nath and Others before Principal & District Judge, Jammu. Appellant No.1 through appellant No.2, as his guardian was arrayed as a party to the suit. By consent of the parties the suit was decreed. A Local Commissioner was appointed to recommend partition. The Jammu property as per report of the Local Commissioner was divided into three parts, one part falling to the share of respondent No.2, one to the share of Respondent No.3 and one to the share of appellant No.1. The report further stated that the Delhi property would devolve entirely upon respondent No.1. A final decree in terms of the report of the Local Commissioner was passed on March 30, 1976 which has become final and is binding on the parties. The sisters of respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. respondents No.4 to 6 did not claim any share in the two properties. It is urged that RFA(OS)86/2013 Page 2 of 21 appellant No.1 has been enjoying the sole exclusive ownership over his separate share of property in Jammu. He has even been collecting rent by letting out different portions of the suit property in Jammu which had fallen to his share in the partition decree. All these facts it is averred have been mischievously and malafidely suppressed in the plaint.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1