Court : US Supreme Court
Sauer v. New York - 206 U.S. 536 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Sauer v. New York, 206 U.S. 536 (1907) Sauer v. New York No. 130 Argued March 21, 1907 Decided May 27, 1907 206 U.S. 536 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus While under the law of the New York, the owner of land abutting on a street has easements of access, light and air as against the erection of an elevated railway by or for a private corporation for its own exclusive purposes, he has no such easements as against the public use of the streets, or any such structure which may be erected upon the street to subserve and promote the public use, and he is not therefore deprived of his property without due process of law by the erection of such a structure for the public use. The decision of the Court of Appeals of the New York in the Elevated Railroad cases related to the structure of an elevated railroad for a private corporation, and did not create any contract within the impairment of obl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Brand v. Union Elevated R. Co. - 238 U.S. 586 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court Brand v. Union Elevated R. Co., 238 U.S. 586 (1915) Brand v. Union Elevated Railroad Company No. 268 Argued May 6, 7, 1915 Decided June 21, 1915 238 U.S. 586 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Nothing in the federal Constitution gives anyone the right to have the jury instructed that he is entitled to damages for property taken where the instruction is not based on some evidence or entitles him to damages without proof. After an elevated railroad had been built in a street, the jury, in a suit brought by an abutting owner, viewed the premises, and the only testimony showed that the property was worth more after than before the erection of the structure; held, that the owner was not entitled to an instruction that the jury must exclude from their estimate of market value subsequent to the construction any enhancement from the facilities furnished to the property by the struct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % RSA No.92/2012 March 4, 2014, MOKUL INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ANR. ...... Appellant Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Varma, Mr. Vikrant Vasisth and Mr. Joydeep Bhattacharya, Advs. VERSUS VEENA PAINTAL Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Mr. Shiv B.Chotry and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 22.2.2010 and the first appellate court dated 31.01.2012; by which the suit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction and mesne profits was decreed by granting the following reliefs:13. Relief In view of the findings given in the above issues, the plaintiff is entitled to the following reliefs:1. Plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injuction against the defendant in respect of unbuilt area of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1533 Of 2019 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. KARAMDEEP FINANCE & INVESTMENT (I) PVT. LTD. & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1534 Of 2019 M/S. KARAMDEEP FINANCE & INVESTMENT (I) PVT. LTD. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.These two appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 30.03.2016 of Delhi High Court by which judgment Delhi High Court has partly allowed the LPA No.226 of 2014 (Delhi Development Authority vs. M/s. Karamdeep Finance and Investment (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.). The Delhi Development Authority as 1 well as M/s. Karamdeep Finance & Investment (I) Pvt. Ltd., the writ petitioner have filed these two separate appeals challenging the same judgment. Both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.2. The brief facts of the case necessary for deciding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999VAD(Delhi)254; AIR1999Delhi383; 81(1999)DLT228; 1999(50)DRJ751; ILR1999Delhi58
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. The plaintiffs who are husband and wife have filed this suit seeking decree of (1) specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6.6.1977 executed by defendant No.1 in their favour, (2) for possession (of ground floor part) and (3) for damages.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No. 1 had executed an agreement to sell dated 6.6.1977 of property No. 227 in Block E, Greater Kailash, New Delhi measuring 208 sq. yards in their favor for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees Two lakhs) and in accordance with the agreed terms a sum of Rs. 1 lakh (Rs. 21,000/- as earnest money and Rs. 79,000/- as advance part payment) was paid by them to him on 9.6.1977 at the time of execution and presentation for registration of the said agreement before the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi when the defendant No. 1 had delivered vacant physical possession of the first and second floors of the said property to them. The sale was to be completed by the defendant within 81 d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The Appellant challenges a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, decreeing OS No. 1394/79. The appellant was arrayed as defendant in the respondents’ suit which sought decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell (hereafter “the agreement”) dated 6.6.1977 (executed by the appellant in their favour) and consequential decree for possession (of ground floor part) and also for damages. 2. The plaintiffs had contended that the Defendant No. 1 (hereafter “the appellant”) executed the agreement to sell the property No. 227 in Block E, Greater Kailash, New Delhi measuring 208 sq. yards in their favor for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. They had paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. 21,000/- as earnest money and Rs.79,000/- as advance part payment) to him on 9.6.1977 at the time of execution and presentation for registration of the agreement before the Sub-Registrar. The appellant had delivered vacant physical ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h September, 2013 + W.P.(C) 4152/2000 M/S. KARAMDEEP FINANCE & INVESTMENT (I) PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Vashisht, Adv. with Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Adv. & Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. with Ms. Ritagya Riti, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL J.(ORAL) 1. This writ petition reflects the predicament in which a person is placed on account of ignorance of law and apathy on the part of the instrumentality of the State, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in this case.2. One Trilochan Singh Rana purchased plot No.14, Block A-2, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi measuring 725 sq. yards in a public auction held by the DDA. A Perpetual Lease Deed was executed in his favour on 18th March, 1970. As per clause 4-A of the Perpetual Lease Deed, the lessee was not entitled to sell, transfer, assign ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1939All37
Bennet Ag., C.J.1. In this second appeal an issue has been referred to this Full Bench as follows:Whether in the circumstances of this case the land in dispute should be considered to be appurtenant to the defendants' holding, and if so, what is the legal position of the parties with respect to it?2. The circumstances of the case are as follows. The plaintiff is the zamindar of two abadi plots given in the plaint as No. 60 area 3 biswas 7 biswansis and No. 61/2 area 1 biswa 12 biswansis in mauza Akbarpur, District Aligarh. He claimed in the plaint of 1934 that three months previously the defendants who are occupancy tenants in the village and who live there had made certain constructions, cattle shed, etc., in these numbers which did not belong to them and the plaintiff sued for demolition and injunction. Of the defendants the first three are brothers and they pleaded that their houses had been there for more than 50 years, andthe cattle of the contesting defendants have been tethered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1962P& H299
(1) This is a defendants' appeal from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Hissar, Reversing that of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar, who dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The pedigree-table of the plaintiff and of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants is given below:-RAMJI DASS|_________________________________________| |Hari Lal Chandu Lal| |Mahadev Jai Dev(Plff.) (Predecessor-in-interest of the defendants)(2) The defendants had purchased area known as Kath Mandi in the town of Hissar from Jaiprakash on 29th October, 1946, who in turn had purchased it from Jai Dev, the original owner, in 1932. The Plaintiff's case is that towards the west and contiguous to Kath Mandi he owns land where cotton and ginning press is constructed. There is a railway siding from the Railway Station, Hissar, up to the premises of the plaintiff. The railway track passes through 385 feet long strip belonging to the Railway, 93 feet belonging to the Municipality, 631 feet within the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR3186
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This Appeal by the plaintiff - Life Insurance Corporation of India is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 23rd February 1983 passed by the learned 9th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Original Suit No. 7903/1980. 2. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 88,858-02 by sale of the mortgaged property. The property mortgaged is described in the Schedule to the plaint. It is a residential site with building bearing No. 177, West of Chord Road, Second Stage, Bangalore. For the purpose of construction of a house on the aforesaid site the defendants raised a loan of Rs. 65,000/- from the plaintiff. Under the Mortgage Deed 30 half yearly instalments were granted to the defendants for payment of the amount of Rs. 65,000/- advanced on mortgage. According to the case of the plaintiff, the defendants failed to pay the instalment from the beginning. The first instalment became due on 27-2-1975 and the second instalment became due on 27-8-1975. The defe...
Tag this Judgment!