Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)
Gurdial Singh And Ors vs Kamaljit Kaur And Ors on 17 February, 2018 cites

Gurdial Singh And Others vs Harjinder Kaur And Others on 12 February, 2014

In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned judgments and decree passed in RSA No.4472-2011 titled as Gurdial Singh and others vs. Kamaljit Kaur and others, RSA No.269-2012 titled as Gurdial Singh and others vs. Kamaljit Kaur and others and RSA No.458- 2012 titled as Gurdial Singh and others vs. Kamaljit Kaur and others and impugned order passed in CR No.3927-2012 titled as Gurdial Singh and others vs. Kamaljit Kaur and others have to be upheld. Consequently, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments. All the present Regular Second Appeals and Civil Revision accordingly fail and are dismissed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - K Kannan - Full Document

Sambangi Applaswamy Naidu & Others vs Behara Venkataramanayya Patro And ... on 28 August, 1984

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the authority of the Apex Court in Gambangi Applaswamy Naidu vs. Behara Venkataramanappa Patro, 1985(2) RCR (Rent) 359, wherein it was held that there is no merger of lease and a mortgage. In the said case usufructuary mortgage was created and the premises was leased back to the mortgager and accordingly, the Apex Court observed as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 28 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Narayan Dogra Shetty vs Ramchandra Shivram Hingne on 10 December, 1962

8 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2018 06:22:23 ::: RSA- 4472-2011 (O&M) 9 and no interest in the property should remain outstanding. In the case of a lease, the estate that is outstanding in the lessor is the reversion; in the case of a mortgage, the estate that is outstanding is the equity of redemption of the mortgagor. Accordingly, there cannot be a merger of a lease and a mortgage in respect of the same property since neither of them is a higher or lesser estate than the other. Even, if the rights of the lessee and the rights of the mortgagee in respect of a property were to be united in one person the reversion in regard to the lease and the equity of redemption in regard to the mortgage, would be outstanding in the owner of the property and accordingly, there would not be a complete fusion of all the rights of ownership in one person. This position in law as explained by the Bombay High Court in Narayana Dogra Shetty v. Ramchandra Shivram Hingne, 65 Bom LR 449 has been fully approved by this Court in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. v. Nagappa Shankarappa & Ors, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1565.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co vs Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors on 23 March, 1976

8 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2018 06:22:23 ::: RSA- 4472-2011 (O&M) 9 and no interest in the property should remain outstanding. In the case of a lease, the estate that is outstanding in the lessor is the reversion; in the case of a mortgage, the estate that is outstanding is the equity of redemption of the mortgagor. Accordingly, there cannot be a merger of a lease and a mortgage in respect of the same property since neither of them is a higher or lesser estate than the other. Even, if the rights of the lessee and the rights of the mortgagee in respect of a property were to be united in one person the reversion in regard to the lease and the equity of redemption in regard to the mortgage, would be outstanding in the owner of the property and accordingly, there would not be a complete fusion of all the rights of ownership in one person. This position in law as explained by the Bombay High Court in Narayana Dogra Shetty v. Ramchandra Shivram Hingne, 65 Bom LR 449 has been fully approved by this Court in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. v. Nagappa Shankarappa & Ors, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1565.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 75 - A N Ray - Full Document
1