Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.29 seconds)

Dheerendra D Jamble And Anr vs Sri R R Diwakar & Ors on 19 April, 2013

Insofar as the contention urged by the counsel for the appellants that it is the District Judge who is competent to frame the scheme and that this task has to be discharged by the Court and the same cannot be delegated to anybody else is concerned, there can be little doubt about this position in law. The judgment in DHEERENDRA D.JAMBLE AND OTHERS VS. SRI.R.R.DIWAKAR AND OTHERS reported in 2013 (3) KCCR 2310 (DB) can be usefully referred here. The prayer in the suit filed under Section 92 of CPC would be for framing a scheme and the scheme has to be framed undoubtedly by the District RFA 1377/2004 26 Judge.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - K S Rao - Full Document

Christopher Karkada vs Church Of South India on 19 November, 2011

23. Sri Nitish, counsel appearing for K.V.Narasimhan takes me through the findings recorded and the judgment and decree passed in the trial Court. He takes me through the evidence including the documents produced before the trial Court to sustain the judgment under challenge. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in CHRISTOPHER KARKADA AND OTHERS VS. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MODERATOR AND OTHERS (ILR 2012 KAR 725) to contend that as the appellants and other defendants have been put in possession of the suit property under sale deeds, their possession become unauthorized and illegal and hence, they have no right to continue in possession of the suit property. He further points out that no plea of adverse possession has been taken by the appellants-defendants.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1