Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2002)2MLJ230
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Aggrieved by an order dated 14.6.2001 in I.A.No.1876 of 2000 permitting the respondent in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001/1st defendant in O.S.No.64 of 1997, to file an additional written statement in O.S.No.64 of 1997 laid by the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001 for (i) declaration of title of the revision petitioner/plaintiff over the suit items; (ii) recovery of possession; (iii) past profits of Rs.12,000.00 against the defendant; (iv) future profits to be determined under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 1997 had filed the above revision.2. Admittedly, the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001/plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 1997 and the second defendant are brothers and the respondent in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001/first defendant in O.S.No.64 of 1997 is the son of the second defendant in O.S.No.64 of 1997. 3. The suit O.S.No.64 of 1997 filed by the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.2808 of 2001 was resisted by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR1052; (2003)105BOMLR797
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Second appeal arises against dismissal of Regular Civil Appeal No. 176/1992, which was filed by present appellants - original defendant Nos. 2 & 3 vide judgment and order dated 16/12.1992 by 2nd Additional District Judge, Osmanabad. As a result of dismissal of first appeal, judgment and decree passed in favour of original plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 by Civil Judge (J. D.), Kallam, in Regular Civil Suit No. 101/1976 on 2.5.1992 stood confirmed. By the said judgment and order, learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of plaintiff for specific performance, directing defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2 to accept balance consideration of Rs. l.000/- and then directing all the defendants to execute a sale deed of suit land in favour of plaintiff within a period of two months from the date of the order. The defendants were also directed to handover possession of the suit land to the plaintiff within two months.Plaintiff approached the Civ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2006)144PLR150
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.1. Defendant No. 1 Smt. Prem Lata has filed this petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 5.6.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, whereby her application for seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the Will in question has been dismissed.2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that Smt. Prem Lata got inherited immovable property situated in village Jathlana, District Yamunanagar, as well as one house consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom and one store, on the basis of the Will dated. 5.9.1990 executed by her mother Smt. Chaman Devi and mutation No. 4579 was sanctioned in her favour on the basis of the order dated 2.2.1995 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jagadhri. Smt. Kamala Devi plaintiff made a challenge to the Will dated 5.9.1990 allegedly executed by her mother as well as the mutation sanctioned in favour of her sister ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:25. h February, 2019 % + FAO(OS) 19/2019, CM Nos. 4034-4036/2019 DINESH AGGARWAL & ORS Through: Mr. Rajat Joseph, Adv. ..... Appellant versus STATE & ORS ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.(ORAL) CM No.4035/2019 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CM No.4034/2019 (for condonation of 56 days delay in filing the appeal) For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. Application stands disposed of. FAO(OS) 19/2019 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated September 04, 2018 passed FAO (OS) 19/2019 Page 1 of 7 in Test. Case No.95/2014 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed a petition filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in respect of Will d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2010(1)MPHT435
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 46-A/2003 (Old No. 12-A/99) for specific performance of contract to sell the suit property and with the passage of time, it came to be dealt with by the XIXth Additional District Judge, Indore. It is pleaded in the plaint that the parties had entered into a written agreement for sale of the suit property and the total consideration had been paid to the respondent No. 2, the defendant in the suit. After the execution of the agreement, the original had been retained by the said respondent and a plain copy was given to the petitioner. It was set forth that the transaction has been mentioned by the respondent No. 2 in the relevant income tax return. The copy of the plaint has been brought on record as Annexure P-1.2. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he did not dispute the receipt of the amount but denied the fact of any agreement between the parties having been executed. After commencement of recording of the evid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)141PLR289
ORDERAdarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against order allowing secondary evidence of Will dated 27.5.1993, subject to proof of execution and loss of Will.2. Suit of the petitioner-plaintiff is for partition on the basis of inheritance to the estate of Babu Ram Sood, which has been contested on the plea that the deceased executed Will in favour of the defendant.3. The respondent-defendant filed an application for producing a photo copy of the Will as secondary evidence, which was opposed by the petitioner.4. The trial court allowed the said application subject to proof of existence of Will and its loss.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the existence and loss of the Will had not yet been proved, permission could not be granted. He relied upon judgment of this court in Krishan Kumar v. Pal Singh, (1989-1)95 P.L.R. 55, wherein it was held that only after existence of the Will and its loss has been proved, permission to lead secondary evid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1979RLR545
S.S. Chadha,J. (1) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has arisen out of the order dated 18th January, 1978 passed by Mrs. Aruna Suresh, Sub-Judge 1st Class Delhi declining an application of the petitioners under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for permission to lead secondary evidence. (2) The petitioners herein and respondents 2 to 6 herein filed a suit against Shri Abdul Wahid, respondent No.1 herein for the recovery of possession of plot of land on the ground that they are the owner's/landlords of the property. The petitioners herein claimed as the heirs of Haji Mohd. Ahmed and respondents 2 to 6 claimed to be the heirs of Mohd. Isaq. It was alleged that the property in dispute was purchased in the name of Haji Mohd. Ahmed and Mohd. Isaq on 8th November, 1943. During the pendency of the suit, a question arose about the ownership of the property in dispute though the contention of respondents 2 to 6 was that the issue of ownership was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1993)103PLR206
Ashok Bhan, J.1. This is defendants' appeal. Ram Kumar plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as a plaintiff) filed the present suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 32 Kanals 4 Marias. One Harphool died leaving behind two widows Paton and Bujan, defendant No. 8. Smt. Paton and Smt. Bujan inherited the property of Harphool Singh in equal shares. On 16.3.1968, Sujan defendant No. 8 adopted Ram Kumar, plaintiff through a registered adoption deed. On 20 3.1968, Paton executed a registered Will in favour of the plaintiff which has been exhibited as Ex. P 11. Paton died on 21.5.1958. On 25.11.1969, mutation regarding the inheritence of Paton was sanctioned to the extent of half of the share in the name of the plaintiff and the other half in favour of Smt. Bujan. Plaintiff was only 12 years old at the time of death of Smt. Paton and Smt. Bujan was acting as his legal as well as natural guardian being the adoptive mother. The Will Ex. P- 1) was in possession of Smt. Bujan ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(4)MhLj176
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Respondents have been served and they are absent. None present for them. This petition has been shown in the Board as listed for final hearing. It pertains to the year 1988. The respondents are treated ex-parte and this petition is finally heard and is being decided today.2. Mr. Solkar, counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that when the revision petition has been pending before the Member of M.R.T., the present petitioner moved an application on 2-3-1988 making the request to the learned Member of M.R.T. to take certified copies of the following documents on record :--1. Application dated 24-7-1985, filed under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Tenancy act for convenience) bearing No. 13 of 1985 which was submitted by the present petitioner in the Court of Tahsildar, A.L.T. Dapoli.2. Depositions of 6 persons i.e. Applicant, her witnesses and landlords i.e. present respondent Nos. 2 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: This Appeal is preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 11 of O.S.Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order of this Court dated 9.2.2015 in C.S.Diary No.31735 of 2014.) A. Selvam, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal has been directed against the rejection order dated 9.2.2015 passed in C.S.Diary No.31735 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The material averments made in the plaint filed in C.S.Diary No.31735 of 2014 may be summarized as follows: The first defendant herein, as plaintiff, has instituted O.S.No.32 of 1986 on the file of Small Causes Court, Chennai, praying to pass a decree of eviction, wherein the present plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 have been arrayed as defendants. The said suit has been decreed as prayed for, on 22.9.2003 and the same has been challenged in Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.1961 of 2012 on the file of this Court and the same has also been dismissed. Against the order passed in C.R.P.(NPD) No.1961 of 2012, the first...
Tag this Judgment!