Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)
State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed Kunhi on 21 August, 1990 cites

C.Mohammed Yunus vs Syed Unissa And Others on 14 February, 1961

In C. MOHAMMAD YUNUS v. SYED UNNISSA AND ORS., it has been further reiterated that there could be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right'. There is no such clear and unequivocal infringement of the right of the plaintiffs or real threat to the right of the plaintiffs by the entries which have no legal effect in the eye of law. Further the very order dated 17th August 1966 - Ex.P-9 itself shows that the Government was not sure whether the suit schedule property was redeemed sagu or unredeemed sagu. They also did not assert in the Government Order dated 17th August 1966 that the suit schedule property was redeemed sagu only. This conduct on the part of the Government would also show that the entries made from the year 1918 till the date relied upon by the learned Government Advocate to non-suit, the plaintiffs were not treated even by the State Government as final and conclusive and affecting the right of the plaintiffs. We may also refer to two more decisions of the Supreme Court having a bearing on the point.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 102 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next