Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)Phoolchand And Anr vs Gopal Lal on 10 March, 1967
In view of
the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Phoolchand and
11
SKS,J
A.S.No.81 of 2017
Another vs. Gopal Lal, there is no prohibition for passing more
than one preliminary decree for declaring the shares. Therefore,
there is no irregularity in the judgment of the trial Court and the
parties are advised to approach the trial Court finally to implead
them in final decree proceedings in I.A.No.1149 of 2010 in
O.S.No.300 of 2006, which is pending before the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and it is left open
to the parties to file any other petition in the trial Court.
T.Ravi & Anr vs B.Chinna Narasimha & Ors. Etc on 21 March, 2017
In T.Ravi vs. B.Chinna Narasimha this Court held as under:
Section 52 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
S.Pitchai vs Ponnammal on 4 August, 2017
The same principle is reiterated in later judgment rendered by a
learned Judge of Madras High Court in S. Pitchai v.
Ponnammal4.
Manohar Lal Chopra vs Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal on 16 November, 1961
In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bhadur Rao
Raja Seth Hiralal5, the same principle was laid down, and this
Court in Syed Mohiddin v. Abdul Rahim6, held that third party
can be impleaded even after passing of a preliminary decree
when the decree was obtained by playing fraud without
impleading the persons, who are entitled to claim share in the
property.
Syed Mohiddin (Died) And Anr. vs Abdul Rahim And Ors. on 29 August, 1963
In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bhadur Rao
Raja Seth Hiralal5, the same principle was laid down, and this
Court in Syed Mohiddin v. Abdul Rahim6, held that third party
can be impleaded even after passing of a preliminary decree
when the decree was obtained by playing fraud without
impleading the persons, who are entitled to claim share in the
property.
Sriramula Ramachandram And Others vs Sriramula Bhoodamma And Others on 17 August, 1993
Chunduru Sarada8, Sriramula
Ramachandram v. Sriramula Bhoodamma9, Ch. Yashoda
Devi v. B. Dayakar Reddy10, Krishna Aiya v. Subrahmania
Aiyar11, answered the issue holding that as a matter of law, a
party can be impleaded after passing of a preliminary decree in
a partition suit and before passing of final decree:"
Smt. Ch. Yashoda Devi And Anr. vs B. Dayakar Reddy And Anr. on 31 August, 1994
Chunduru Sarada8, Sriramula
Ramachandram v. Sriramula Bhoodamma9, Ch. Yashoda
Devi v. B. Dayakar Reddy10, Krishna Aiya v. Subrahmania
Aiyar11, answered the issue holding that as a matter of law, a
party can be impleaded after passing of a preliminary decree in
a partition suit and before passing of final decree:"
K.V. Krishna Aiyar vs K.G. Subramania Aiyar on 13 December, 1938
Chunduru Sarada8, Sriramula
Ramachandram v. Sriramula Bhoodamma9, Ch. Yashoda
Devi v. B. Dayakar Reddy10, Krishna Aiya v. Subrahmania
Aiyar11, answered the issue holding that as a matter of law, a
party can be impleaded after passing of a preliminary decree in
a partition suit and before passing of final decree:"