Evacuee Property—Tehsildar Sales cannot claim the ownership as a mortgagee by efflux of time

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By phlaw| December 1st, 2019|Specific Relief Act|Comments Off

Permalink
Gallery
Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34~Suit for Possession-In case of sale of share by a co-sharer, remedy of the plaintiff (buyer) would be to seek partition—Plaintiff stepped into the shoes of erstwhile co-owner and shall be treated as a co- sharer—Plaintiff if does want joint possession, can seek protection of possession qua share already in his possession.
December 1st, 2019 | Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34~Suit for Possession-In case of sale of share by a co-sharer, remedy of the plaintiff (buyer) would be to seek partition—Plaintiff stepped into the shoes of erstwhile co-owner and shall be treated as a co- sharer—Plaintiff if does want joint possession, can seek protection of possession qua share already in his possession.
Permalink
Gallery
Injunction–Dispossession–Landlord cannot forcibly take the possession from the tenant, even though tenant has not been successful in seeking restraint against forcible interference and dispossession.
December 1st, 2019 | Comments Off on Injunction–Dispossession–Landlord cannot forcibly take the possession from the tenant, even though tenant has not been successful in seeking restraint against forcible interference and dispossession.
Permalink
Gallery
Forcible Dispossession—Resjudicata—Principle of resjudicata is not applicable to a suit instituted under S. 6 of Specific Relief Act Forcible Dispossession—Previous Suit—Provisions of S 40 of Evidence Act would not be applicable to a suit instituted under S. 6 of Specific Relief Act
November 9th, 2019 | Comments Off on Forcible Dispossession—Resjudicata—Principle of resjudicata is not applicable to a suit instituted under S. 6 of Specific Relief Act Forcible Dispossession—Previous Suit—Provisions of S 40 of Evidence Act would not be applicable to a suit instituted under S. 6 of Specific Relief Act
Permalink
Gallery
Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Recovery-Execution of Pronote– Authenticity of revenue stamp affixed- trial Court directed to get the stamps verified from the Government Press at Nasik, as per procedure
October 8th, 2019 | Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Recovery-Execution of Pronote– Authenticity of revenue stamp affixed- trial Court directed to get the stamps verified from the Government Press at Nasik, as per procedure
Permalink
Gallery
Specific Relief—Suit for Ownership—Courts must make sincere attempt to lift the veil and expose the sinister design even in civil litigation.
August 14th, 2019 | Comments Off on Specific Relief—Suit for Ownership—Courts must make sincere attempt to lift the veil and expose the sinister design even in civil litigation.
Permalink
Gallery
Agreement to Sell—Sale deed—Setting aside of—Once an agreement to sell is followed by execution and registration of the sale deed, the sale deed cannot be set aside only on the ground that there is some suspicion in the execution of the agreement to sell—The sale deed is executed and registered before the Registration Authority—Once a sale deed has been executed, the agreement to sell pales into insignificance
August 4th, 2019 | Comments Off on Agreement to Sell—Sale deed—Setting aside of—Once an agreement to sell is followed by execution and registration of the sale deed, the sale deed cannot be set aside only on the ground that there is some suspicion in the execution of the agreement to sell—The sale deed is executed and registered before the Registration Authority—Once a sale deed has been executed, the agreement to sell pales into insignificance
Permalink
Gallery
Agreement to Sell—Proposed purchaser though in possession but failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of agreement- -Not entitled to protect their possession u/s 53-A of T.P Act
July 26th, 2019 | Comments Off on Agreement to Sell—Proposed purchaser though in possession but failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of agreement- -Not entitled to protect their possession u/s 53-A of T.P Act

%d bloggers like this:

Search Here

Login

Membership open – Laws of India info group – LAWSINDIA.IN – Visit

Find us on Facebook

Supreme Court of India – Judgements

Guests have searched for Punjab & Haryana law

Judgements – Topic wise