Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ram Sarup vs Munshi And Others(And Connected ... on 30 August, 1962
Reference to that judgment shows that
it relied on three earlier Constitution Bench renderings -
these being in Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath Singh 2; Sant Ram v.
Labh Singh 3 and Ram Sarup v. Munshi4.
Bhoop Alleged Son Of Sheo vs Matadin Bhardwaj Son Of Lakmi Chand on 4 December, 1990
8.Another point urged is that the right of co-sharer may
not be allowed to be claimed by a stranger merely because he
had purchased the property sometime back from a co-sharer.
This submission cannot also be accepted because though the
purchaser in question was initially a stranger, he having
stepped into the shoes of the co-sharer has to be taken as a
co-sharer. The objection which applies qua stranger ceases
to have any significance after he has acquired the right of
the co-sharer. No objection regarding acquisition of a co-
sharer's property having been taken earlier, the stranger
cannot be treated differently from other co-sharers
afterwards. In such a situation he has himself to be taken
as a co-sharer. It is because of this that what was stated
by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Bhoop v. Matadin
Bhardwaj5, in para 7 relating to the object of conferring
the right of pre-emption on a cosharer - the same being
exclusion of strangers from acquiring interest in immovable
property - would have no application when the stranger has
acquired the status of a co-sharer.
Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990
9.The last contention is that the view taken by a two-
Judge Bench in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden6
being different from the one taken in aforesaid decisions
the same needs reconsideration and these cases may be
referred to a larger Bench to spell out the meaning and
scope of
5 (1991) 2 SCC 128
6 (1990) 2 SCC 117 : JT (1990) 1 SC 199
707
sub-clause "Fourthly" of Section 15(1)(b) of the Act.
Reference to Cawasji6 decision shows that that case was
concerned with the right conferred by the second paragraph
of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Therefore what was stated in that case regarding the right
of a member of an undivided family cannot be said to have
any connection with the meaning to be given to the
expression "other co-sharers" appearing in sub-clause
"Fourthly".
Bhikha Ram vs Ram Sarup And Ors on 31 October, 1991
This is more so because a three-Judge Bench of
this Court has well explained its meaning in Bhikha Ram v.
Ram Sarup7 by overruling what was held in Jagdish v. Nathi
Mat Kejriwal8.
Jagdish & Ors vs Nathi Mal Kejriwal & Ors on 24 October, 1986
This is more so because a three-Judge Bench of
this Court has well explained its meaning in Bhikha Ram v.
Ram Sarup7 by overruling what was held in Jagdish v. Nathi
Mat Kejriwal8.