Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.59 seconds)
Harish vs Ved Parkash on 26 December, 2025 cites

Ved Parkash And Anr vs Madan Lal Sharma (Since Deceased) ... on 6 November, 2017

38. In the cross-examination, PW1 deposed that he has completely gone through his affidavit of evidence exbt- PW1/A. PW1 further deposed that defendant no.1 i.e., Shri. Babulal was not alive on the date of filing the present suit. PW1 further deposed that he was aware of the fact that Shri. Babulal was not alive at the time of filing of the present suit. PW1 further deposed that Smt. Geeta who is defendant no.2 Civ DJ No.210827/2016 (Old Case No.3367/2014) Ved Prakash vs. Babu Lal (Since Deceased) & Ors.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - A Kshetarpal - Full Document

Ved Parkash vs Pappu @ Babu Lal & Ors on 9 September, 2009

79. Admittedly, the plaintiff is in possession of first and second floor of the suit property and according to the defendant no.1A and 1B the first and second floor have come to the share of the plaintiff by way of oral partition, though oral partition is not proved as discussed above. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant no.1A and 1B, 2(a) to 2(d), 3 to 5 in suit Ved Prakash vs. Babu Lal (Since deceased) & Ors. from creating any third-party interest in any manner in the first and second floor of the suit property bearing No. 129/14, Amrit Puri, Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi (Khasra No. 147, Garhi Jharia Marhi measuring 100 sq. yards). Hence, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff (Ved Prakash) and against the defendants.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Kant - Full Document

Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2018

74. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. (supra) has held that only in exceptional cases where the plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally proved in the same manner as if it has been affected by a decree of a court only then it may be accepted, however, mere plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly. In the case in hand in order to prove the oral partition defendant no.1A and 1B have relied upon electricity bill dated 09.06.2018 Ex.DW1/B, water bill dated 11.10.2010 Ex.DW1/C, construction material slip dated 02.05.2012 Mark A1 and payment made to labour for construction of third floor Mark B1.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 353 - P M Singh - Full Document

Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan vs Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi(D) Tr.Lrs. on 27 September, 2022

not impleaded in the suit, therefore, no effective decree could have been passed in their absence. Hence, relying upon Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Behdi (supra) this court is of the considered view that in the absence of Sh. Narayan Das, husband of defendant no.2, no effective decree can be passed. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of defendant no.1A and 1B and against the plaintiff. Issue No.7
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 38 - B R Gavai - Full Document
1