Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.55 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 34 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Punjab Land Revenue Rules [Entire Act]
Sait Tarajee Khimchand And Ors. vs Yelamarti Satyam Alias Satteyya And ... on 19 April, 1971
In Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others vs. Yelamarti Satyam alias Satteyya and others, AIR 1971 SC 1865, Court said that merely marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents.
Sitaram vs Ram Charan And Ors. on 23 April, 1994
It was followed in Sitaram vs. Ram Charan and Ors. AIR 1995 MP 134.
The Assam Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1960
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Mrs. Jamuna Uke vs State Of Chhattisgarh 121 ... on 3 November, 2017
10. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the matter by filing combined written statement dated 18.3.2004 wherein broadly the averments made in plaint were denied except that 10 rooms having got constructed by defendant 1. Defendants 1 and 2 also raised additional pleas stating that suit has been instituted with false and incorrect pleadings and facts, and plaintiffs have no cause of action to institute the same and it is barred by Section 49 of Consolidation of Holdings Act; plaintiffs have no claim, interest or right over disputed property or part of disputed property; there are three temples and a pond in plot no.179 Kha, which was renovated by defendant 1 Hari Narayan; disputed property is Bhumidhari and plaintiffs are not recorded as co-owners in Revenue records hence have no right or claim over the same; Suit is barred by Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1950"); plaintiffs have always recognized defendants as owner recorded in Revenue records and therefore suit is barred by estoppel and acquiescence; suit is barred by limitation; pleadings are self contradictory; suit is barred by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963; valuation is not correct and therefore, insufficient Court fees has been paid and in respect of disputed property, another suit no.461 of 1980 (Mohan Lal Vs. Hari Narayan Dubey) is pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gyanpur; plaintiffs are guilty of suppression of material facts and for this reason also, suit is liable to be dismissed; plaintiffs have no substantive right, interest or claim over disputed property at any point of time; there is another Original Suit No.443 of 2000 (Ram Narayan and others vs. Nagar Palika and others) in respect of disputed property, which is pending; out of 10 rooms got constructed by defendant 1, he is having possession of one for his own purposes and 9 have been rented out; eastern part of land, which is vacant, has been rented out for carrying on business of sand-stones etc. and in some part, temporary Gomti has been kept by certain tenants and they are carrying out their business.