Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.35 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 6 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land ... on 9 August, 1991
owner of the same property is to seek for a decree of partition
claiming separate/exclusive possession. The suit for partition
has not been instituted and, therefore, the suit for possession
alone is not maintainable. To support this submission, he has
placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Budhram v. Bansi and Ors.1, A. Viswanatha Pillai
and Ors. v. Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition2,
Rachakonda Venkatrao and Ors. v. R. Satya Bai (dead) by
LR. And Anr.3, Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan
Chand Anand and Ors.4 and Mangal Builders & Enterprises
Limited and Ors. v Williamson Magor & Company Ltd. and
Ors.5 .
Delhi Development Authority vs Diwan Chand Anand . on 11 July, 2022
owner of the same property is to seek for a decree of partition
claiming separate/exclusive possession. The suit for partition
has not been instituted and, therefore, the suit for possession
alone is not maintainable. To support this submission, he has
placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Budhram v. Bansi and Ors.1, A. Viswanatha Pillai
and Ors. v. Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition2,
Rachakonda Venkatrao and Ors. v. R. Satya Bai (dead) by
LR. And Anr.3, Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan
Chand Anand and Ors.4 and Mangal Builders & Enterprises
Limited and Ors. v Williamson Magor & Company Ltd. and
Ors.5 .
B. Premanand & Ors vs Mohan Koikal & Ors on 16 March, 2011
(iii) There is no scope for invoking equitable consideration to
claim exclusive possession from a co-owner. According to
him, it is trite that law prevails over equity as the law is
deemed to be equitable. He places reliance on a decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of B. Premanand & Ors. v.
Mohan Koikal & Ors.6 and State of Uttarakhand v. Archana
Shukla and Ors7.
Urmila Sharma vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. on 22 September, 2021
(iv) There are material inconsistencies in the pleadings and
the oral evidence adduced, thereto. In addition, the plaintiff
kept on shifting/changing its stand at different stages which
can be noted from paragraph no.8 of the amended plaint
wherein, the suit property is stated to have been constructed in
such a manner that it comprises of two separate portions
implying that it was divided from the beginning itself. Further,
while drawing the attention of the Court to paragraph no.11 of
the plaint, it was asserted that a case of subsequent living
arrangement was set up which allegedly specified the portions
to be occupied by the respective parties. He further emphasises
on affidavit Ex.PW-1/A dated 09.11.2004 to indicate that the
said position was re-asserted. However, while pointing out
another evidence i.e., affidavit Ex.PA dated 23.03.2010, he
submitted that the plaintiff introduced an altogether new
narration of an oral partition. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be
allowed to shift his case and such contradictory standpoints
completely vitiate the plaintiff‟s version. Further, there is no
pleading for a case of living arrangement and in the absence of
a specific pleading and material, particularly to show a living
arrangement, such a plea cannot be accepted. Reliance is
placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Urmila
Sharma v. Jai Bhagwan and Ors.8 to substantiate the said
submission.