Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.73 seconds)Sriram Pasricha vs Jagannath & Ors on 24 August, 1976
41. So far as argument of learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant about the co-owner not being a family member of other co-owner is concerned, in the eyes of law, though co-owners not being the family members, it does not make any difference and each co-owner has full right to file suit for eviction. There is no such Rule or law laid down by the Courts, which provides that in case of co-owners being family members have different better right than that of co-owners not being family members.
Section 3 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
B.P. Pathak vs Dr. Riyazuddin And Ors. on 9 October, 1975
Chief Justice G.P. Singh, speaking for the Full Bench, approved the statement of law in B.P. Pathak's case and held that Section 109 of T.P. Act confers a right on the owner to effect a severance of a lease by his unilateral act and tenancy over a part of the property leased can be determined by the transferee."
Section 109 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Pal Singh vs Sunder Singh (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 10 January, 1989
"It is well settled by at least three decisions of this Court, namely, Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath (1976) 4 SCC 184Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak, (1977) 2 SCC 814 and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh, (1989) 1 SCC 444 that one of the co-owners can alone and in his own right file a suit for ejectment of the tenant and it is no defence open to the tenant to question the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the other co-owners were not joined as parties to the suit. When the property forming the subject-matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several owners, every co-owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property so long as the property has not been partitioned. He can alone maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant without joining the other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object.
Kanta Goel vs B.P. Pathak & Ors on 1 April, 1977
"It is well settled by at least three decisions of this Court, namely, Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath (1976) 4 SCC 184Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak, (1977) 2 SCC 814 and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh, (1989) 1 SCC 444 that one of the co-owners can alone and in his own right file a suit for ejectment of the tenant and it is no defence open to the tenant to question the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the other co-owners were not joined as parties to the suit. When the property forming the subject-matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several owners, every co-owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property so long as the property has not been partitioned. He can alone maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant without joining the other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object.
Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai And Ors on 8 July, 2002
31. From the perusal of the said judgment, it is apparently clear that in this matter, the Court has taken a firm view that a co-owner has full right to file suit for eviction in case not objected by other co-owner.
Rajendra Prasad Saxena And Others vs Disgtrict Judge, Budaun And Ors. on 30 August, 2019
32. This Court has again considered the same issue in the matter of Rajendra Prasad and others Vs. District Judge, Allahabad and others: 64 ALR 879 (ALL). Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: