Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
Shri Ramesh Kumar Madan vs Shri Subhash Madan on 8 May, 2007 cites

State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.Etc vs Ganesh Wood Products & Ors.Etc on 11 September, 1995

26. On the other hand, it has been argued that if partition is allowed that could deteriorate the value of the suit property. The defendant will suffer irreparable loss. Keeping in view the principles of law laid down in case of State of H.P. and others Vs. Ganesh Wood Products and others, supra, I considered if it would be better in the welfare of both the parties to order for partition the suit property?
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 160 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Mohar Singh (Dead By Lrs.) vs Devi Charan & Others on 9 May, 1988

10. The burden to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. It has been argued on behalf of the defendant that there was no occasion for the plaintiff to demand the partition because plaintiff and defendant had exchanged their properties by family settlement and there was no justification for the plaintiff to demand partition. The counsel for the defendant rely on a case Mohar Singh, (dead by LRs), Vs. Devi Charan and others,1 and argued that even their self acquired properties can be disposed of by way of settlement. It was held therein that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 58 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Tek Bahadur Bhujil vs Debi Singh Bhujil And Ors. on 26 February, 1965

In Tek Bahadur Bhuji V. Debi Sing Bhujil, the constitution Bench of this court considered the validity of the family arrangement and the question was whether it requires to be compulsorily registered under Section 17. This court, while upholding oral family arrangement, held that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangements are reduced into writing."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 138 - R Dayal - Full Document
1