April 2019

March 2019

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Partition-Oral partition without causing entry in the revenue record or the records of the revenue authority would not confer joint ownership.         

By | March 29th, 2019|Specific Relief Act|

Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Partition-Oral partition without causing entry in the revenue record or the records of the revenue authority would not confer joint ownership.         

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Possession-Plaintiff is in possession—Claim by defendant no.2 on being licensee—As per revenue records ownership lies with panchayat—In the absence of any grant by original licensee, subsequent licensee cannot be branded as a licensee

By | March 29th, 2019|Specific Relief Act|

Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Possession-Plaintiff is in possession—Claim by defendant no.2 on being licensee—As per revenue records ownership lies with panchayat—In the absence of any grant by original licensee, subsequent licensee cannot be branded as a licensee

Agreement to Sell-No evidence has been led to believe the thumb impression or circumstances as to how they appeared on the agreement to sell-No sane person, on receipt of the notice of the plaint, would sit idle, rather would make all efforts in case there is an attempt of forgery on the part of the opposite party-No such effort has been made in this case, therefore, adverse inference of the receipt of amount towards the security loan is the correct appreciation

By | March 28th, 2019|Specific Relief Act|

Comments Off on Agreement to Sell-No evidence has been led to believe the thumb impression or circumstances as to how they appeared on the agreement to sell-No sane person, on receipt of the notice of the plaint, would sit idle, rather would make all efforts in case there is an attempt of forgery on the part of the opposite party-No such effort has been made in this case, therefore, adverse inference of the receipt of amount towards the security loan is the correct appreciation

Agreement to Sell-Refund of earnest money—After non execution of sale deed on target date, due to illness of purchaser, seller sold land to third party—But there was exchange of communication immediately after the expiry of target date which establishes that party had intention to purchase—Court rightly directed refund of earnest money

By | March 28th, 2019|Specific Relief Act|

Comments Off on Agreement to Sell-Refund of earnest money—After non execution of sale deed on target date, due to illness of purchaser, seller sold land to third party—But there was exchange of communication immediately after the expiry of target date which establishes that party had intention to purchase—Court rightly directed refund of earnest money

Agreement to Sell—Earnest Money—Once readiness and willingness had not been proved, earnest money deemed to have been forfeited

By | March 15th, 2019|Specific Relief Act|

Comments Off on Agreement to Sell—Earnest Money—Once readiness and willingness had not been proved, earnest money deemed to have been forfeited

Suit for ownership—Once the original sale deed has been produced and has come on record, the court cannot refuse to look into said document in favour of the plaintiff merely because it has been produced by the defendant

By | March 9th, 2019|Specific Relief Act|

Comments Off on Suit for ownership—Once the original sale deed has been produced and has come on record, the court cannot refuse to look into said document in favour of the plaintiff merely because it has been produced by the defendant

January 2019

Suit for declaration—Once a suit for mandatory injunction and in alternative possession has been filed claiming that the plaintiff is owner of the property on the basis of five registered sale deeds, the relief of declaration was implicit

By | January 28th, 2019|Specific Relief Act|

Comments Off on Suit for declaration—Once a suit for mandatory injunction and in alternative possession has been filed claiming that the plaintiff is owner of the property on the basis of five registered sale deeds, the relief of declaration was implicit

December 2018

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Recovery-Friendly Loan-Dishonour of Cheque—Suit for recovery against legal heirs of borrower, who issued cheque for repayment of friendly loan but died before presentation of cheque—Held; there is nothing on record to show that the amount in question was advanced as a loan—There was no writing effected, no pronote or receipt prepared-­ Plaintiff admitted that not even an entry in any note took was made by him

By | December 14th, 2018|Specific Relief Act|

Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Recovery-Friendly Loan-Dishonour of Cheque—Suit for recovery against legal heirs of borrower, who issued cheque for repayment of friendly loan but died before presentation of cheque—Held; there is nothing on record to show that the amount in question was advanced as a loan—There was no writing effected, no pronote or receipt prepared-­ Plaintiff admitted that not even an entry in any note took was made by him

November 2018

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.20~Agreement to Sell-Specific Performance-If the owner is having imperfect title and enters into the contract, on getting clear title, he is bound to execute and honour the agreement—Transfer of Property Act, 1881, S.43.

By | November 29th, 2018|Specific Relief Act|

Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.20~Agreement to Sell-Specific Performance-If the owner is having imperfect title and enters into the contract, on getting clear title, he is bound to execute and honour the agreement—Transfer of Property Act, 1881, S.43.

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Declaration-Co-ownership-Once it is established that the property has been partitioned by the owners and converted into plots, the concept of co-ownership in a joint khata cannot be invoked to hold that the parties are joint owners

By | November 29th, 2018|Specific Relief Act|

Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Declaration-Co-ownership-Once it is established that the property has been partitioned by the owners and converted into plots, the concept of co-ownership in a joint khata cannot be invoked to hold that the parties are joint owners

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Injunction–Co-sharer–Once a co-sharer was in exclusive possession of a certain parcel of land vested in a joint holding without there being a partition then other co-sharer could not have been granted injunction against the co-sharer is possession as both the co-sharer are in separate possession of suit land

By | November 25th, 2018|Specific Relief Act|

Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Injunction–Co-sharer–Once a co-sharer was in exclusive possession of a certain parcel of land vested in a joint holding without there being a partition then other co-sharer could not have been granted injunction against the co-sharer is possession as both the co-sharer are in separate possession of suit land

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Partition-Co- sharer–Any construction made by a co-owner exclusively would not confer right in the entire property—A co-owner would remain a co-owner and, the Courts rightly passed a preliminary decree for partition.

By | November 23rd, 2018|Specific Relief Act|

Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Partition-Co- sharer–Any construction made by a co-owner exclusively would not confer right in the entire property—A co-owner would remain a co-owner and, the Courts rightly passed a preliminary decree for partition.

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Declaration—Claim for Possession- -If a plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property then a suit for mere declaration would be maintainable—The corollary whereof is that if the plaintiff is not in possession, a suit for mere declaration would not be maintainable.     

By | November 23rd, 2018|Specific Relief Act|

Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Declaration—Claim for Possession- -If a plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property then a suit for mere declaration would be maintainable—The corollary whereof is that if the plaintiff is not in possession, a suit for mere declaration would not be maintainable.     

September 2018

June 2018

March 2018