Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.81 seconds)A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 7 March, 2007
In A.V. Papayya Sastry and others Vs. Govt. of A.P. and
others (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 221, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that fraud vitiates all judicial acts whether in rem or in
personam - judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud has to be
treated as non est and nullity, whether by Court of first instance or by
the final court - it can be challenged in any court, any time, in appeal,
revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings - this is an exception to
Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
N.S.S.Narayana Sarma & Ors vs M/S.Goldstone Exports P. Ltd. & Ors on 23 November, 2001
79. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkatramana placed
reliance on the reported in the case of N.S.S. Narayana Sarma and
others Vs. Goldstone Exports (P) LTD. And others (2002) 1
HC, J & NVSK, J
49 Applns. No.361 of 2007 and batch
In
C.S. No.14 of 1958
Supreme Court Cases 662, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the aim of enacting Rule 101 in Order XXI CPC is to remove
technical objections to applications filed by aggrieved party as to
whether he is the decree-holder or any other person in possession?
Provision is made in the Civil Procedure Code for delivery of
possession of immovable property in execution of a decree and
matters relating thereto. Order XXI Rule 35 provisions are made
empowering the executing Court to deliver possession of the property
to the decree-holder if necessary, by removing any person bound by
the decree who refuses to vacate the property. From the provisions in
these Rules, the scheme is clear that the legislature has vested wide
powers in the executing Court to deal with "all issues" relating to such
matters. Relevant paras No.15 and 19 are extracted hereunder:
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 54 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Khemchand Shankar Choudharyand ... vs Vishnu Hari Patil And Others on 3 December, 1982
44. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkatramana
appearing for the respondents in Application No.450 of 2007 would
submit that a final decree can be passed in a partition suit only in
favour of a sharer under the preliminary decree or a purchaser under
a registered sale deed or an assignee under registered assignment
HC, J & NVSK, J
25 Applns. No.361 of 2007 and batch
In
C.S. No.14 of 1958
deed from the sharer. To substantiate the said averments the learned
Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgments reported in the case
of Khemchand Shankar Choudhari and another Vs. Vishnu Hari
Patil and others, (1983 (1) SCC 18), Venkata Reddy and others Vs.
Pethi Reddy, (AIR 1963 SC 992) and Khan Bahadur, C.B.
Taraporwala and another Vs. Kazim Ali Pasha and others,
(AIR 1966 AP 361).
Khan Bahadur C.B. Taraporwala And Anr. vs Kazim Ali Pasha And Ors. on 27 August, 1965
44. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkatramana
appearing for the respondents in Application No.450 of 2007 would
submit that a final decree can be passed in a partition suit only in
favour of a sharer under the preliminary decree or a purchaser under
a registered sale deed or an assignee under registered assignment
HC, J & NVSK, J
25 Applns. No.361 of 2007 and batch
In
C.S. No.14 of 1958
deed from the sharer. To substantiate the said averments the learned
Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgments reported in the case
of Khemchand Shankar Choudhari and another Vs. Vishnu Hari
Patil and others, (1983 (1) SCC 18), Venkata Reddy and others Vs.
Pethi Reddy, (AIR 1963 SC 992) and Khan Bahadur, C.B.
Taraporwala and another Vs. Kazim Ali Pasha and others,
(AIR 1966 AP 361).
Dhani Ram Gupta & Ors vs Lala Sri Ram & Anr on 7 December, 1979
45. It is further submitted that the recognition of an assignment of
decretal rights is not recognised by law and it shall not create any
rights as held in Dhani Ram Gupta and Others Vs. Lala Sri Ram
and another (AIR 1980 SC 157). Thus the applicants in Application
No.450 of 2007 do not have any semblance of legal right to make a
prayer for passing of final decree on the basis of an assignment
(unregistered made by some GPA holder of D-157). The orders of the
learned Single Judge in Application Nos.469 and 470 of 1996, dated
26.08.1996 do not in any manner entitle the applicants for claiming a
final decree. Where there is no final decree in favour of the assignors
of the applicants, the question of an assignee getting final decree that
too under unregistered deed of assignment, does not arise. As such
the applications are liable to be dismissed.
Idpl Employees Co-Operative Housing ... vs B. Rama Devi And Ors. on 25 August, 2004
57. It is submitted by the claim petitioners that this Court itself is
having jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions and that the
respondents No.1 to 15 in collusion with respondents No.17 and 18
got advanced the EP proceedings and have taken warrant for delivery
of possession behind their back, having knowledge that the claim
petitioners and others are in actual physical possession and
enjoyment of the part of the property claimed by the respondents No.1
to 15. It is further submitted that when the Court Bailiff came to the
site on 14.03.2007, he made an endorsement on the warrant that
there are structures in existence including a mosque. He also noted
that the land is not an open agricultural land and on the other hand it
has been converted into residential plots, roads are laid, development
has taken place. While so, again behind back of the real persons in
possession of the property, respondents No.1 to 15 in collusion with
the Court Bailiff brought into existence of delivery of possession and a
panchanama dated 02.04.2007 alleged to have been made at about
8.10 am., and therefore, the warrant of delivery of possession is illegal
and void in view of the judgment of this Court reported in IDPL
Employees CO-Operative Housing Building Society Limited,
Hyderabad and another Vs. B. Rama Devi and Others (2004 (5) ALD