Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Section 31 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Mabeeba Begum And Ors. vs Gulam Rasool And Ors. on 28 July, 1999
In Mabeeba Begum v. Gulam Rasool (supra), the plaintiff who was a consenting party to various documents whereby the suit property was divided between the plaintiff and his brothers and sisters, filed a suit for declaring that he is the exclusive owner of the property without praying for cancellation of those deeds to which he is a parly. It was found from the conduct of the plaintiff himself that the said documents were fully acted upon and that he had also reliquished his rights in favour of the other members of the family. Under those circumstances, it was held that without seeking cancellation of the said documents the plaintiff could not maintain the suit for injunction simpliciter without declaration of title.
Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Fakirbhai Bhagwandas And Anr. vs Maganlal Haribhai And Anr. on 5 October, 1950
To the same effect is the decision in Fakirbhai Bhagwandas and Anr. v. Maganlal Haribhai and Anr., .
Section 38 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Chepana Peda Appalaswamy vs Chepana Appalanaidu And Ors. on 2 April, 1996
Following the said judgments this Court in Chepana Peda Appalaswamy v. Chepana Appalanaidu, 1996 (2) ALD 499, held that a suit for mere injunction without a prayer for declaration of title is maintainable.
K. Venkata Rao And Ors. vs Sunkara Venkata Rao on 21 August, 1998
7. The learned Counsel for the appellants however, seeks to draw support from Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and the decisions in Mabeeba Begum v. Gulam Rasool, and K. Venkata Rao and others v. Sunkara Venkata Rao, . Sub-
1