Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
Suresh Kumar & Anr vs Yogesh Kumar & Ors on 10 February, 2015 cites

Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors on 29 March, 2010

It is now settled by the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh's case (supra) that if the plaintiff is the non-executant of the sale deed is also in possession and sues for declaration that the sale deed is null and void and does not bind him or his share, he is only liable to pay the fixed court fee of `19.95/- under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 871 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Gajara Vishnu Gosavi vs Prakash Nanasaheb Kamble & Ors on 16 September, 2009

Thus, the decisions in Mehar Chand Das's case (supra) and in Kartar Kaur and another's case (supra), relied upon by counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable to this case rather the decision in Gajara Vishnu Gosavi's case (supra), relied upon by counsel for respondent no.1, is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because as per decision of this Court in the case of Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204, every co-sharer is an owner of every inch of joint land which has further been approved by Five Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chander v. Bhim Singh and others, 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 002 (P&H) (FB). Thus, even if defendant no.5 had purchased the suit property, he would also have to file a suit for partition in order to take possession as in a joint property, specific portion cannot be sold to the detriment of the interest of the other co-sharers, therefore, respondent no.1 has rightly filed the suit for possession on the basis of partition by metes and bounds of the suit property for segregating his share and was not required to ask for VINOD KUMAR 2015.02.12 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.4711 of 2011 (O&M) [6] **** possession in the later suit filed for declaration to challenge the sale deeds in which he was not associated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

Ram Chander vs Bhim Singh And Others on 1 November, 2012

Thus, the decisions in Mehar Chand Das's case (supra) and in Kartar Kaur and another's case (supra), relied upon by counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable to this case rather the decision in Gajara Vishnu Gosavi's case (supra), relied upon by counsel for respondent no.1, is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because as per decision of this Court in the case of Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204, every co-sharer is an owner of every inch of joint land which has further been approved by Five Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chander v. Bhim Singh and others, 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 002 (P&H) (FB). Thus, even if defendant no.5 had purchased the suit property, he would also have to file a suit for partition in order to take possession as in a joint property, specific portion cannot be sold to the detriment of the interest of the other co-sharers, therefore, respondent no.1 has rightly filed the suit for possession on the basis of partition by metes and bounds of the suit property for segregating his share and was not required to ask for VINOD KUMAR 2015.02.12 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.4711 of 2011 (O&M) [6] **** possession in the later suit filed for declaration to challenge the sale deeds in which he was not associated.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 61 - L N Mittal - Full Document

Kartar Kaur And Anr. vs Chhinder Singh And Ors. on 7 January, 2004

Thus, the decisions in Mehar Chand Das's case (supra) and in Kartar Kaur and another's case (supra), relied upon by counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable to this case rather the decision in Gajara Vishnu Gosavi's case (supra), relied upon by counsel for respondent no.1, is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because as per decision of this Court in the case of Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204, every co-sharer is an owner of every inch of joint land which has further been approved by Five Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chander v. Bhim Singh and others, 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 002 (P&H) (FB). Thus, even if defendant no.5 had purchased the suit property, he would also have to file a suit for partition in order to take possession as in a joint property, specific portion cannot be sold to the detriment of the interest of the other co-sharers, therefore, respondent no.1 has rightly filed the suit for possession on the basis of partition by metes and bounds of the suit property for segregating his share and was not required to ask for VINOD KUMAR 2015.02.12 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.4711 of 2011 (O&M) [6] **** possession in the later suit filed for declaration to challenge the sale deeds in which he was not associated.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1