Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)

Anil Sagar vs Gaon Sabha Village & Ors. on 2 December, 1999

The said report wherein no opportunity was given to one of  the effected party New Case No. 7535/16 (old case no. 175/04)  Page No. 10/21 cannot  be  relied  upon. The  said  report thus  also  ignores  the  mandate provided   under   Rule   170   of   Delhi   Land   Reform   Rules   as   well   as principles of Natural Justice.  The chairman of the Board was not acting as representative of DDA but as Court Commissioner hence the other affected party's view should have been considered before finalization of report.     To   support   this   view   I   am   guided   by  Anil   Sagar   Vs.   Gaon Sabha and ors., 84 2000 DLT 212.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008

32. In the subsequent suits  filed by the plaintiffs namely Rattan Singh and   Bal   Dei   bearing   no.   16/09   and   17/09   respectively   both   of   them claimed permanent injunction qua property measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas of khasra no. 317 min. The said claim of face of it is liable to be rejected as revenue record Ex. PW2/1 itself rebuts their claim of possession as school is also occupying major part of said land.   Thus injunction qua suit property has been sought without the plaintiff being in possession of entire suit property.  Thus suit is liable to be dismissed in view of the law laid   down  by   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court  in  Anathula  Sudhakar  Vs.   P. Buchi Reddy, AIR 2008 SC 2033.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 2311 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Smt. Lalita James And Ors. vs Ajit Kumar And Ors. on 21 August, 1989

In   this   regard,   the   judgment   of Hon'ble High Court titled as Lalita James Vs. Ajit Kumar, AIR 1991 MP 15 is relevant wherein it was observed as under:­  "It is well settled rule of law that burden of proving his case to obtain relief from the Court is always on the plaintiff   who   must   adduce   reliable   and   admissible evidence   for   the   said   purpose.   Section   102   of   the Evidence At contains the broad rule in this behalf and therefore, provides the legal guidelines in the matter.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 34 - Full Document
1