Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.28 seconds)
Ravinder Kumar vs Haseena on 15 May, 2024 cites

Shakeel Ahmed vs Syed Akhlaq Hussain on 23 August, 2018

iv. The facts of the present case are akin to the facts stated in the above-mentioned case. The Plaintiff does not state expressly in the plaint or evidence that he has filed the suit as an attorney of the previous owner, with her permission to evict the Defendant. In fact, the Plaintiff, does not disclose his nature of rights in the suit property in the affirmative either in plaint or in examination-in-chief and the same has to be inferred from the documents relied upon by him. The documents relied upon by the Plaintiff are unregistered and thus, do no confer any legal title in favour of the Plaintiff. Therefore, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shakeel Ahmed (Supra), the suit for possession, solely on the basis of aforesaid unregistered documents, on the facts stated in the plaint, would not be ANIL maintainable, irrespective of the nature of possession of the CHANDHEL Defendant. Besides the defective title, there are other reasons, Digitally signed by ANIL CHANDHEL Date: 2024.05.15 18:03:54 +0530 ________________________________________________________________ Ravinder Kumar Vs. Haseena Page No. 24 of 34 CIV DJ NO. 431/2018 which dis-entitles the Plaintiff to seek any decree for possession and the same are being discussed in the paras hereinafter.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Hardip Kaur vs Kailash & Anr. on 18 May, 2012

disputed by the Defendant. The afore-mentioned documents ________________________________________________________________ Ravinder Kumar Vs. Haseena Page No. 19 of 34 CIV DJ NO. 431/2018 are unregistered and therefore, do not confer any title in law on the Plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has stated that the Plaintiff does not have to prove the absolute ownership in the suit property and has only to prove a better right than the Defendant. It is stated that the Defendant does not have any documents in her favour and therefore, the better right of the Plaintiff, in terms of Exhibit PW-1/3(colly) is sufficient for seeking possession from the Defendant. It is stated that the Plaintiff can be construed as an attorney of the previous owner, who does not have any objection to the rights of the Plaintiff to seek possession from the Defendant. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'Hardip Kaur Vs. Kailash & Ors. 193(2012) DLT168'.
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 112 - J R Midha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next