Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)
Naranjan Dass vs Nirmal Dass Etc on 23 September, 2014 cites

Ram Chander vs Bhim Singh And Others on 1 November, 2012

"12. ...........Generally various cosharers, especially those co-owners who have Abadi lands in common, do possess some exclusive shares, which sometimes may be in excess to their entitlement but this arrangement in itself does not amount to partition of the joint holdings. Infact, separate position is needed to carry on the affairs of their respective families by the co- shareres. Unless a partition occurs, every co-sharer is as much owner of the entire property as sole owner till it is partitioned. It has been observed by a Full Bench of our Honourable High Court in Ram Chander vs Bhim Singh & ors. 2008 (4) Civil Court Cases, 2 that:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 61 - L N Mittal - Full Document

Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bub vs Sita Saran Bubna & Ors on 21 August, 2009

'Despite a separation in joint status, parties may continue to possess the lands jointly unless a partition of the joint family property takes place by metes and bounds and a partition by metes and bounds occurs when a property is divided RISHU KATARIA 2014.09.29 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-631-2011 (O&M) -8- by demarcating its areas to be held in severalty.' It has been defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Parsad Bubna vs Sita Saran Bubna & Ors. 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 304 that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 191 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Ram Niwas Pandey vs Jai Narayan Kansotiya Judgement Given ... on 14 May, 2013

As already noted, parties may be living in separate parcels of the joint land. They may be living so, for a long time but this fact in itself does not make out that parties had partitioned their joint holdings. Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) by Lrs. Vs Sri Jagdish Kalita & Ors. 2003 (2) Apex Court Judgments 473 (SC) has laid down that long and continuous possession in itself does not constitute adverse possession. Our Hon'ble High Court in Ram Niwas vs Jai Ram 2000(3) RCR (Civil) 738 has laid RISHU KATARIA 2014.09.29 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-631-2011 (O&M) -5- down that when a piece of land is jointly owned by a number of cosharers and when no partition is effected, by merely raising construction on the joint land, defendants cannot oust the plaintiff who is a cosharer."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1