Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.67 seconds)
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Shri Ravi Sharma on 22 March, 2022 cites

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008

Again, I have to say that reliance of the Ld. Counsel on the judgment of Anathula Sudhakar (supra) is highly mis-conceived and mis-placed as the said judgment is not applicable in the present case. The defendant in his written statement had also conceded to the fact that the land upon which the suit property was constructed was allotted to the plaintiff by Gaon Sabha being landless person in the year 1962. Therefore, the title of the plaintiff viz-a-viz defendant was never in any cloud and suit of the plaintiff seeking possession by mandatory injunction on the ground that the defendant was his licensee whose license had been terminated is perfectly maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 2311 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Vishwa Vijai Bharti vs Fakhrul Hasan & Ors on 4 May, 1976

He further argued that onus to prove issue no. 1 upon him was wrongly placed by the trial Court as it was for the plaintiff to prove that he was the owner of the suit property. He further submitted that the trial Court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 185 of Delhi RCA No. 132/2019 Page No. 19 of 19 Land and Reforms Act. He further argued that since the title of the plaintiff was under cloud, therefore, his suit without seeking declaration was not maintainable. He relied upon the authorities in the cases of; Vishwa Vijai Bharti v. Fakhrul Hasan & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 642, Wali Mohammad (Deceased) by LRs v. Ram Surat & Ors. 1989 AIR 2296 SC, Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 396, Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 426, Corporation of City of Bangalore v. Zulekha Bi & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 306, Union of India and others v. Vasavi Co- op. Housing Society (2014) 2 SCC 269, Biraji @ Brijraji & Anr. v. Surya Pratap and Ors. AIR 2020 SC 5483, G. Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh (1979) 1 SCC 560, Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 and Subhadara v. Surender Singh, 229 (2016) DLT 188.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 63 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Wall Mohammad (Deceased) By L.Rs vs Ram Surat & Ors on 21 September, 1989

He further argued that onus to prove issue no. 1 upon him was wrongly placed by the trial Court as it was for the plaintiff to prove that he was the owner of the suit property. He further submitted that the trial Court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 185 of Delhi RCA No. 132/2019 Page No. 19 of 19 Land and Reforms Act. He further argued that since the title of the plaintiff was under cloud, therefore, his suit without seeking declaration was not maintainable. He relied upon the authorities in the cases of; Vishwa Vijai Bharti v. Fakhrul Hasan & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 642, Wali Mohammad (Deceased) by LRs v. Ram Surat & Ors. 1989 AIR 2296 SC, Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 396, Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 426, Corporation of City of Bangalore v. Zulekha Bi & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 306, Union of India and others v. Vasavi Co- op. Housing Society (2014) 2 SCC 269, Biraji @ Brijraji & Anr. v. Surya Pratap and Ors. AIR 2020 SC 5483, G. Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh (1979) 1 SCC 560, Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 and Subhadara v. Surender Singh, 229 (2016) DLT 188.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 38 - M H Kania - Full Document

Nagar Palika, Jind vs Jagat Singh, Advocate on 28 March, 1995

He further argued that onus to prove issue no. 1 upon him was wrongly placed by the trial Court as it was for the plaintiff to prove that he was the owner of the suit property. He further submitted that the trial Court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 185 of Delhi RCA No. 132/2019 Page No. 19 of 19 Land and Reforms Act. He further argued that since the title of the plaintiff was under cloud, therefore, his suit without seeking declaration was not maintainable. He relied upon the authorities in the cases of; Vishwa Vijai Bharti v. Fakhrul Hasan & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 642, Wali Mohammad (Deceased) by LRs v. Ram Surat & Ors. 1989 AIR 2296 SC, Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 396, Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 426, Corporation of City of Bangalore v. Zulekha Bi & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 306, Union of India and others v. Vasavi Co- op. Housing Society (2014) 2 SCC 269, Biraji @ Brijraji & Anr. v. Surya Pratap and Ors. AIR 2020 SC 5483, G. Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh (1979) 1 SCC 560, Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 and Subhadara v. Surender Singh, 229 (2016) DLT 188.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 175 - N P Singh - Full Document

Corporation Of City Of Bangalore vs Zulekha Bi & Ors on 24 March, 2008

He further argued that onus to prove issue no. 1 upon him was wrongly placed by the trial Court as it was for the plaintiff to prove that he was the owner of the suit property. He further submitted that the trial Court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 185 of Delhi RCA No. 132/2019 Page No. 19 of 19 Land and Reforms Act. He further argued that since the title of the plaintiff was under cloud, therefore, his suit without seeking declaration was not maintainable. He relied upon the authorities in the cases of; Vishwa Vijai Bharti v. Fakhrul Hasan & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 642, Wali Mohammad (Deceased) by LRs v. Ram Surat & Ors. 1989 AIR 2296 SC, Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 396, Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 426, Corporation of City of Bangalore v. Zulekha Bi & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 306, Union of India and others v. Vasavi Co- op. Housing Society (2014) 2 SCC 269, Biraji @ Brijraji & Anr. v. Surya Pratap and Ors. AIR 2020 SC 5483, G. Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh (1979) 1 SCC 560, Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 and Subhadara v. Surender Singh, 229 (2016) DLT 188.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 23 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018

6. The plaintiff assails the impugned judgment on the grounds that trial Court has failed to consider that the defendant did not discharge the onus to prove issue no. 1 as they had failed to prove any document thereof. The plaintiff further contended that the trial Court failed to consider that the plaintiff acquired statutory right as per Section 8 of Delhi Land and Reform Act and Rule 5 of Delhi Land and Reform Rules. He further argued that trial Court ignored the fact that the plaintiff acquired proprietary right of the suit property in the year 1962 and defendant no. 1 was born on 10.05.1979. He further canvassed that Ld. trial Court did not take into consideration the admission by defendant no. 1 in para-1 of his suit titled as Ravi Sharma v. Mahohar Lal Sharma, wherein he admitted that the suit property was allotted to landless persons in the year 1962 by Gaon Sabha. He further argued that trial Court has failed to consider the fact that defendants were the licensee of the plaintiff in respect of suit property and their license was duly terminated by the plaintiff.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4774 - M M Shrivastava - Full Document
1   2 Next