Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)
Aero Traders Pvt Ltd vs Ravinder Kumar Suri on 28 January, 2019 cites

Sk.Sattar Sk.Mohd.Choudhari vs Gundappa Amabadas Bukate on 11 October, 1996

11. It was urged since the respondent had not filed any partition suit to partition the property between himself and his brother Mr.Rajan Suri or the transferee Mr.Anis-ur-rehman, hence per Mr.Sattar Mohammad Chaudhari Vs. Gundappa (1996) 6 SCC 373 this petition is not maintainable without the consent or impleadment of the other co-owners of the property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 102 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Kale & Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ors on 21 January, 1976

"8. Counsel for the petitioner contended that a family settlement is required to be registered and if it is not registered it cannot be looked into. As already stated this Court has not to look into the ownership of respondent for the purpose of the Transfer of Property Act. If Sh. J. P. Srivastava or other family member had challenged the family settlement, the Court could look it from the angle of the Transfer of property Act. But a tenant cannot challenge the family settlement nor can ask the Court to ignore the document on the ground of its not having been registered. Even otherwise, in Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation MANU/SC/0529/1976 : [1976]3SCR202 , Supreme Court observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 687 - S M Ali - Full Document
1