Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.33 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr vs L. Balasubramanyam & Anr on 27 August, 2003
In this
/ 95 / O.S.No.7528/2013
case plaintiffs cannot claim mesne profits. Besides,
plaintiffs themselves filed I.A.No.18 under Order VI Rule
17 r/w/s 151 of C.P.C. for amendment of plaint. In the
affidavit filed along with I.A.No.18 at para No.3 plaintiff
No.1 himself sworn that, "Actually, it is well settled law
that in a suit for partition the question of mesne profits
does not arise at all." Plaintiffs themselves sworn that in
a suit for partition mesne profits cannot be claimed,
even then they have made prayer for mesne profits. The
counsel for plaintiffs fairly submitted that in a suit for
partition plaintiffs cannot claim the mesne profits.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 101 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 110 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Randhi Appalaswami vs Randhi Suryanarayanamurti on 2 July, 1947
In a decision reported in (2003) 10
SCC 310 [D.S. Lakshmaiah and another Vs. L.
Balasubramanyam and another] the Hon'ble Apex Court
held in Paragraph-9 of it's judgment was pleased to
/ 70 / O.S.No.7528/2013
refer to a case in Appalaswami Vs. Suryanarayanamurti,
reported in AIR 1947 PC 189, and pleased to observe
that,
"Proof of the existence of a joint family
does not lead to the presumption that
property held by any member of the family is
joint, and the burden rests upon anyone
asserting that any item of property is joint to
establish the fact. But, where it is
established that the family possessed some
joint property which from its nature and
relative value may have formed the nucleus
from which the property in question may
have been acquired, the burden shifts to the
party alleging self-acquisition to establish
affirmatively that the property was acquired
without the aid of the joint family property.
Further, in the same judgment at Paragraph-18, the
Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as below: