Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Order XXI Rule 99, CPC is lucid that where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.
The Delhi High Court said that in a suit for partition and possession, a relief of declaration sought by way of amendment is impermissible as it would change nature of suit.
“In the case of Hindu women, who may not have their own income, receiving a life estate given to them by their husbands who may predecease them is an essential safeguard for their financial security during their lifetime.”
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on rescinding partition on ground of fraud.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on partition of Hadapsar lands under Hindu law.
Supreme Court: In a case where an appeal was filed against the decree of the trial Judge holding that the
Supreme Court: While deciding about a century-old land dispute, the Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ., upheld the impugned
“Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon the bastardy.”
Bombay High Court: Mangesh S. Patil, J., decided on the following questions for consideration: Whether in a suit for partition and possession
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai*, JJ., upheld the impugned judgment of the High Court wherein
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna*, JJ has held that a document of partition which
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Nazeer and Krishna Murari*, JJ has held that if a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving
Andhra Pradesh High Court: M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J., expressed that, “If a party to the document wants to annul the document, he
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi: Naresh Kumar Laka, Additional District Judge, decided a suit with respect to partition and permanent injunction.
“If the Khararunama by itself, does not ‘affect’ immovable property… there would be no breach of Section 49(1)(c), as it is not being used as evidence of a transaction effecting such property.”
Supreme Court: The bench of Mohan M. Shantanagoudar* and Vineet Saran, JJ., addressed the instant appeal against the order of High Court
by Niyati Karia and Urvi Jinsiwale*
Patna High Court: Mohit Kumar Shah, J., while addressing the instant partition suit decided on the question as to whether: transferee pendente
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K. Agrawal, J., allowed a second appeal against the order of the trial court as well as the First
Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. dismissed the petition application by the petitioner. In