Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.29 seconds)The Delimitation Act, 1972
Section 3 in The Delimitation Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
The Police Act, 1888
Noola vs L. Chimman Lal on 30 October, 1934
12. It is settled law that when in a suit in Small Causes Court, the question of title is raised, it is expedient for the Court to return the plaint for presentation before a Court competent to decide such a question. It is not necessary that plaintiff-defendant should be rival claimants to the immovable property. The object of Section 23 is to meet cases in which Judge is satisfied that the question is so intricate that it should not be decided summarily and that it should return a plaint for presentation to a proper Court. A reference in this regard is made to a decision in Noola v. S. Chman Lal, AIR 1935 All 148."
Pratap Singh vs Ixth Additional District Judge, ... on 10 May, 2000
In Pratap Singh Vs. IXth ADJ, Fatehpur and others, 2000 (2) ARC 41=300(3)AWC 1995, in paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 of the judgment the Court s(2) Pratap Singh v. IXth Additional District Judge, Fatehpur and Ors. 2000 (3) AWC 1995 : 2000 (2) ARC 41 ;aid:-
Article 4 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Delimitation Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Smt. Sughra Begum vs Additional District Judge Xiith, ... on 20 March, 1998
In my opinion, under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the provisions of Section 23 of the Act referred to above were fully attracted. Otherwise also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to cut-short the litigation, it was necessary either to return the plaint for presentation to a Court of competent jurisdiction or to transfer the suit giving rise to the present petition to the Court of Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, as the Judge Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title.
M/S. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & ... vs Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) By ... on 5 January, 2004
24. It is also not the case of petitioner that in respect to shop in question, he had pleaded since initial stage that it was a joint property of other sons of Raja Sao or that on the date of filing release application assuming that there were some other co-owners, they had any intention of not evicting petitioner from shop in question. The sale deed dated 4.11.1993 in respect to one-forth share in house no.CK37/16 came to be executed after filing of release application as also written statement by petitioner-tenant. A perusal of sale deed dated 4.11.1993 also refers to an agreement between the petitioner and heirs of Sri Bharat Sav regarding sale of one-forth share in the house property CK37/16, Vishwanath Gali, Varanasi and in reference thereto an earlier agreement dated 6th July, 1993 but it did not mention at any stage that the vendors therein had not consented or had expressed any otherwise view in respect to ejectment of petitioner-tenant from shop in question though release application dated 8.9.1992 of respondents 1 to 7 was pending at that time. It is in these facts and circumstances, in my view, what has been stated by Apex Court in M/s. India Umbrella Manufacturing Company (supra) in paras 6 and 7 of the judgment would squarely apply in the present case, inasmuch as, one of the co-owners cannot withdraw his consent midway the suit so as to prejudice the other co-owner. The suit once filed, the rights of parties stand crystallised on the date of suit and the entitlement co-owners to seek ejectment must be adjudged by reference to the date of institution of the suit.