Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the suits for possession and injunction retransfer act 1963 Page 1 of about 12,739 results (1.374 seconds)

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bobbiti Subba Reddy and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(3)ALD601

..... and that as the government (first defendant) is claiming title thereto they filed the suits for declaration of title to the suit land and for a perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with their possession and other reliefs, inter alia alleging that issueless syed gulam hussain, son of syed ibrahim, who is the paternal uncle of the second defendant, was the owner of the suit land and that he adopted the second defendant and gifted the suit land to her and subsequently executed a gift deed on 25-6-1953 on a non-judicial stamp paper and delivered possession of the suit land to her and ..... the tahsildar who conducted the enquiry on the application filed by the husband of the second defendant found that the application said to have been made by gulam hussain does not in fact contain the signature of gulam hussain, and so he recommended for retransfer of the ..... mohammedan law' (8th edition) at page 313 it is stated:adoption not recognized by mohammedan law: adoption shall not confer upon any person the status of a child except in the following cases(1) where subject to the provisions of the shariat act (xxvi of 1937) there is a valid custom of adoption. ..... no doubt true that the provisions of sections 122 and 123 of the transfer of property act do not apply to ..... civil) 91 at 93, it is held though writing is not essential for a gift under mohammedan law, but if the gift is reduced to writing it requires to be registered under section 17(1) of the registration act. .....

Alla Subbareddi Vs. Lankireddi Narayanaswamireddi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1949Mad283; (1948)2MLJ251

..... i am therefore of opinion that even before a final order transferring the suit is passed and when the application for transfer is pending disposal the court has power to pass an interlocutory order either granting an injunction or appointing a receiver or grant such other relief pending disposal of the transfer petition as the proceeding is an original proceeding within the meaning of section 141 and all the powers which the court possesses for passing interlocutory orders in the case of a suit can be exercised during the pen-1 dency of such proceedings.8. ..... was of opinion that when a suit was instituted in an inferior court in the mofussil and that court was closed for summer recess the high court bad power to transfer the suit under clause 13, letters patent, and pass interim orders but that such application should be made on the original side of the high court and should also ask for an injunction or other interlocutory relief and a further application should be made for re-transferring all the proceedings to the original court. ..... 354 of 1947 on the file of the court of the district munsif of bezwada for transfer of the suit to this court and for passing interlocutory orders and for retransferring the same. ..... 427 the calcutta high court had to consider the applicability of the provisions of order 40 rule 1 to proceedings for the appointment of a common manager under section 93, bengal tenancy act. .....

P.Subramani .. Vs. Kamalammal, and ors.

Court : Chennai

..... in such circumstances, the plaintiffs had filed the suit, in o.s.no.1007 of 1993, to declare the title of the third and the fourth plaintiffs, by way of an amended plaint, in the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, from, in any way, disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the third and the fourth plaintiffs. 5. ..... the suit had been filed by the plaintiff arumuga kounder, praying for a judgment and decree declaring the plaintiffs title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and agents from in any way disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiff and for costs. ..... during the pendency of the said appeal the second plaintiff had sold a portion of the suit properties to the third and the fourth plaintiffs and as such the alleged sale, dated 6.2.1998, in favour of the plaintiffs 3 and 4, by the second plaintiff, is invalid in the eye of law, as it is adversely affected by the principle of lis pendens, as per section 52 of the transfer of property act, 1882. ..... the said suit had been transferred to the additional district court, villupuram, and retransferred as o.s.no.202 of 1999. .....

Madras Refineries Ltd. Vs. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporati ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1999]95CompCas213(Mad)

..... 1 to 6 have committed fraud and breach of trust by illegally and unauthorisedly transferring the 168.38 acres of land, more particularly described in the plaint schedule, allotted to the eighth defendant, in favour of the seventh defendant and for a consequential declaration that the said lands are being held by the seventh defendant in trust for the eighth defendant (b) a permanent mandatory injunction directing the seventh defendant to hand over possession to the eighth defendant the 166.38 acres of land, more fully described in the plaint schedule in respect of which possession was obtained as a result of acts of breach of trust committed by defendants ..... thus, considering the averments contained in the plaint and in the affidavits filed in support of the applications filed for interim injunction and after hearing learned senior counsel appearing on either side, we are of the opinion that on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, mel has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction as prayed for by it in both the suits. ..... the learned judge has erred in not granting an interim mandatory injunction retransferring possession of 168.38 acres of land from the seventh respondent to the eighth respondent. 15. .....

Buddala Veerabhadra Rao Vs. Duddumpudi Venkatraju and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1966CriLJ1080

..... poonamalle for an injunction restraining the counter, petitioners from interfering with his possession and enjoyment and the suit was finally disposed of on 15.8.1941, giving a permanent injunction against the counter petitioners from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. ..... 381 of 1960) in the court of the district munsif, kakinada against two defendants namely, the present petitioner and velupuri seshabrahmam (who is the fourth respondent erein) for adjustment of the petitioner from the suit land and putting the plaintiff namely, the first respondent herein in possession. ..... , on 23.8.1952 and when the enquiry was still pending before him, the party opposed to the applicant instituted a suit under section 20 and section 232, of the zamindary abolition and land reforms act, against the applicant and the suit was decreed on 10.9.1953 in favour of that opposite party by the revenue court which declared that party to be entitled to retain possession of the land in dispute. ..... he took the property under a lease deed (ex-d 1) dated 28.6.1963 from the fourth respondent and was in possession and enjoyment of the property till the revenue inspector took possession of the standing crop when attached by the court.7. ..... thereafter, on representations being made by the petitioner to the higher authorities, the patta was cancelled and retransfer was ordered on 12.3.1948. .....

Munnalal Son of Bhairu Singh and ors. Vs. Atmaram S/O Nandram (Hemraj ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2008(1)MPLJ328

..... by taking law in his own hands if the defendant has taken possession of the suit property from the plaintiff, he is legally bound to deliver the possession back to him, if the suit for possession is decreed. ..... article 64 of indian limitation act, 1963 (in short the act of 1963) throws sufficient light to bring a suit for possession. ..... according to this article, a suit for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title can be brought by plaintiff within 12 years from the date of dispossession. ..... 1 munnalal illegally took possession of the suit property from plaintiff and hence the present suit has been filed by plaintiff for specific performance of contract praying therein that the document ex.p/1 be got registered and the possession be delivered to him. ..... if such suit of injunction can be filed by a trespasser against the real owner certainly he can also file a suit for restoration of possession on the basis of his previous possession as envisaged under article 64 of the act. 16. ..... sampatbai 1980 (2) mpwn note 148 has come to the conclusion that the suit which was filed on the basis of an unregistered sale-deed seeking relief to get it registered would be deemed to be a suit for specific performance of contract under section 10 of specific relief act, 1963 and hence the appellate court affirmed the decree of the trial court directing defendant no. ..... the supreme court further held that such an endorsement would not be a retransfer of title. .....

Phoola Devi Vs. Estate Officer

Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

..... however, in the final analysis, her attempt to remain in possession of the site proved futile, inasmuch as, the suit was dismissed by the trial court, the appeal was dismissed by district judge, chandigarh and the revision petition was dismissed by the learned single judge of this court. ..... it is rather surprising that even after the dismissal of the writ petition in the year 1995 and revision petition in the year 1997, the authorities of chandigarh administration entertained the application made by the petitioner under rule 21-a of the rules and thereby enabled her to continue to retain possession of the site for another 5 years. ..... however, the recalcitrant attitude exhibited by her right from the beginning was again demonstrated when she failed to deposit the amount in terms of the offer made by the estate officer for retransfer of the site. ..... thereafter, eviction proceedings were initiated and the building was got vacated and sealed under the public premises act, 1971. ..... the petitioner, however, continued to occupy the site by obtaining an ex parte injunction from the civil court. ..... therefore, at this belated stage, we are not inclined to entertain her prayer for directing the respondents to accept the offer of price made by her in this court and quash the proceedings initiated under the act. .....

Jyotsna Kohli Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN155; JT2004(Suppl1)SC62; (2004)138PLR316; 2004(4)SCALE787; (2004)12SCC516

..... it appears that the appellant filed an injunction suit in the year 1982 against the bank to restrain it from using the premises, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had no locus ..... anything contained in the proviso above, when the site has been resumed on ground of misuser or non-completion of the building on it within the stipulated period; the estate officer may allow the retransfer on the applicant agreeing to vacate or have the misuser vacated or the building completed, as the case may be, within such reasonable period as the estate officer may stipulate ..... xxvii of 1952 for any reasons, the estate officer may, on an application, re-transfer the site to the outgoing transferee, on payment of an amount equal to 10 percent of the premium originally payable for such property or one third of the difference between the price originally paid and its value at the time when the application for transfer is made, whichever is ..... the estate officer took possession on 18.12.1991 and sealed the ..... so also, the question whether the procedure under the provisions of public premises act was duly followed, cannot be gone into in this appeal at this ..... was done after issuing show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the power of resumption is conferred by section 8-a of capital of punjab (development and regulation) act, 1952.4. ..... this stage, a reference to rule 11-d may be made :-rule 11-d : (1) where a site has been resumed under section 8-a of act no. .....

Ftc Vs. Western Meat Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... its powers and duties, and for other purposes,' and also the provisions of 7 of said act of congress approved october 15, 1914, entitled 'an act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes,' and particularly to so divest itself absolutely of all capital stock of the nevada packing company as to include in such divestment the nevada packing company's plant and all property necessary to the conduct and operation thereof as a complete, going packing plant and organization, and so as to neither directly or indirectly retain any of the fruits of the acquisition of the capital stock of said ..... " the court below held this order went beyond the commission's authority, and directed that it be modified by eliminating "the injunction against the acquisition by the petitioner of the plant and property of the nevada packing company. ..... 213, we are of opinion that, under 7 and 11 of the clayton act, the commission is without authority to require one who has secured actual title and possession of physical property before proceedings were begun against it to dispose of the same, although secured through an unlawful purchase of stock. ..... if, in spite of the commencement of such a proceeding, the company took a transfer of the assets, the commission could, i assume, require a retransfer of the assets, so as to render effective the order of divestiture of the stock. .....

Karnataka Board of Wakfs, Bangalore Vs. B.C. Nagaraja Rao and Others

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1991Kant400; ILR1991KAR2456

..... for declaration that the suit institution is a religious institution being a holy place of worship belonging to hindus and mohammedans alike, that the same is not a wakf property and inclusion of the plaint schedule property by the appellant in the list being improper and illegal does not affect the rights of plaintiffs or hindus to the said properties and that since the appellant has no right to control or manage the said institution the administration, management and control ofthe schedule property be retransferred from the control of the appellant to that of the 3rd defendant -- the ..... suit instituted against the government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by an officer in his official capacity shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1), if in such notice (a) the name, description and residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1); and (b) the cause of action and the relief claimed by the ..... these being the facts, in the year 1975 the 3rd defendant passed an order directing the tahsildar, chickmagalur in handover possession and control of dathathreya swamy peeta to the 2nd defendant under the impression that it ..... entitled to the declaration and injunction sought? .....