Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.52 seconds)Neelavathi And Ors vs M. Natarajan And Ors on 30 November, 1979
Upon considering the rival submissions made on both sides, this court is of the view that the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelavathi v. N.Natarajan reported in AIR 1980 SC 691, squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. The general principle of law is that in case of co-owners, possession of one is, in law, possession of all co-owners unless ouster or exclusion is proved. In order to arrive at a conclusion that ouster or exclusion is admitted in the pleadings made in the plaint itself, there should be a clear and specific averment in the plaint that he had been excluded from joint possession to which he is entitled in law. The mere averment that the defendants or some of the defendants alone are enjoying the income from the joint property and the plaintiff's share is not given to him will not amount to a pleading of his exclusion from joint possession.
Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh vs Paras Nath Singh & Ors on 22 November, 2001
But the answer to the above said contention of the learned counsel for the applicant/first defendant lies in a later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh vs. Paras Nath Singh & Ors. reported in 2001 (4) CTC 764. In the said case their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while interpreting a similar provision in the State of Bihar, have made the following observations:
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sridharan And Ors. vs Arumugam And Ors. on 19 March, 1993
17. Of course it is true that such an order came to be passed by a learned single judge of this court (as he then was) holding that the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelavathi v. N.Natarajan reported in AIR 1980 SC 691, would not apply and on the other hand, a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Sridharan v. Arumugam reported in 1993 II MLJ 428 alone would apply.
S. Balambal vs Sundaresan And Nine Ors. on 5 February, 1996
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant/first defendant relies on an order of a learned single judge of this court (as he then was) in S.Balambal Vs. Sundaresan & nine others reported in 1996 (I) CTC 420.
1