Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Chander Kishore Sharma And Anr. vs Kampa Wati on 4 July, 1983
of deposition of DW3; Shiv Kumar Jindad, Patwari, from the office of
SDM, Mayur Vihar, Delhi and Shri Daya Ram Dubey, Kanoongo from
the office of LAC, East, Delhi the defendant tried to prove that the suit
property was acquired by the government and that it was the
government who was the owner of the suit property. However, the
deposition of DW3 and DW4 is of no consequence as any amount of
evidence lead which is beyond the pleadings could not be seen by the
Court [Ref. Chander Kishore Sharma v. Shrimati Kampa Wati;
1984 AIR (Delhi) 14, Fats Inc. v. Zen Technologies Limited;
2008(149) DLT 260, Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh; 2003 AIR (SC)
1905].
Fats Inc. vs Zen Technologies Limited on 25 January, 2008
of deposition of DW3; Shiv Kumar Jindad, Patwari, from the office of
SDM, Mayur Vihar, Delhi and Shri Daya Ram Dubey, Kanoongo from
the office of LAC, East, Delhi the defendant tried to prove that the suit
property was acquired by the government and that it was the
government who was the owner of the suit property. However, the
deposition of DW3 and DW4 is of no consequence as any amount of
evidence lead which is beyond the pleadings could not be seen by the
Court [Ref. Chander Kishore Sharma v. Shrimati Kampa Wati;
1984 AIR (Delhi) 14, Fats Inc. v. Zen Technologies Limited;
2008(149) DLT 260, Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh; 2003 AIR (SC)
1905].
Bondar Singh & Ors vs Nihal Singh & Ors on 4 March, 2003
of deposition of DW3; Shiv Kumar Jindad, Patwari, from the office of
SDM, Mayur Vihar, Delhi and Shri Daya Ram Dubey, Kanoongo from
the office of LAC, East, Delhi the defendant tried to prove that the suit
property was acquired by the government and that it was the
government who was the owner of the suit property. However, the
deposition of DW3 and DW4 is of no consequence as any amount of
evidence lead which is beyond the pleadings could not be seen by the
Court [Ref. Chander Kishore Sharma v. Shrimati Kampa Wati;
1984 AIR (Delhi) 14, Fats Inc. v. Zen Technologies Limited;
2008(149) DLT 260, Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh; 2003 AIR (SC)
1905].
Suresh Kumar & Anr vs Saroj Atal on 1 March, 2012
16.The plaintiff shall be entitled to get the decree of possession of the suit
property against the defendants if the plaintiff, on the balance of
probability is able to prove that the plaintiff has better 'entitlement' in
the suit property than the defendants [Ref. Suresh Kumar v. Saroj
Atal; 2012(189) DLT 285].