Title 1 - Judgment Search Results
Kondaveti Francis Vs. M. Ludramma and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALD130; 2000(3)ALT433
together. Both the suits were field on the basis of prior possession without setting up any claim of title and attempts to interfere with such possession by the opposite party. However, in the course of the evidence, … 1. These two second appeals arise out of two cross-suits for permanent injunction filed by the parties against one
Sakamma Vs. Chikkannagowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Kant5; AIR1954Mys5
the land on the ground that defendant's possession is unlawful, does not involve any question as to the title to a village office or as to the possession of emoluments as such; and is therefore within the … 1. The facts of the case under consideration in this appeal are not disputed. The correctness of the findings
Chinnakolandai Gounder Vs. Thanji Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad497; (1965)2MLJ247
bind the reversioner and that S. 14 of the Act had not the effect of converting the alienee's title to the alienated properties, into an absolute and indefeasible one. Applying the ratio of this decision learned counsel … (1) This second appeal raises an interesting question of law about the applicability of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, Central Act XXX of 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The brief
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Deep Chandra Vs. Ruknuddaula Shamsher Jang Nawab Mohammad Sajjad Ali K ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1951All93
being settled, a fresh controversy arose between the parties with regard to the insertion of a covenant of title in the sale deed. The plaintiff insisted that it should be stipulated in the sale-deed that if the … as brief as possible, in what I have to say.4. Sometime in the last part of the year 1941, Ruknuddaula Shamsher Jung Nawab Mohammad Sajjad Ali Khan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Nawab') entertained the idea of
Tallapragada Achutharamayya Vs. Ayyagari Soorappayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad61; (1938)2MLJ894
the appellant's suit - raises questions of greater difficulty. Granting that the decision of the survey officer finding title to the disputed land in favour of the plaintiff concludes the question of title as on that date, … the basis of a favourable decision of the survey officers; whereas S.A. No. 538 relates to O.S. No. 154 in which the respondent who was an unsuccessful claimant before the survey officer sued to set aside the
Abdul Rauf and anr. Vs. Masih-ud-dIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All409; 114Ind.Cas.901
the absence of Abdul Rahman. It is quite plain that they came in to defend themselves and their title, and that both parties proceeded to throw mud at one another, plaintiff alleging that these defendants had made … the plaintiff, was an ex-proprietary tenant and that Abdul Rahman was his subtenant. This happened in the year 1921, the cause of action being said to arise on 1st July 1921, so that it has only been
Bai Dosibai Vs. Bai Dhanbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom85; (1924)26BOMLR1071; 85Ind.Cas.597
sale was to be free from incumbrances. By Clause 7 the vendors were to make out a marketable title free from all reasonable doubts, claims and demands, subject to the special provisions of clauses 4, 5 and … Shah dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance, and allowing the counter claim of the purchaser, defendant No. 1, for the return of her deposit of Rs. 5,000. The litigation turns on a restrictive covenant contained in
Ahmedbhoy Habibbhoy Vs. Sir Dinshaw M. Petit and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.124
resolved themselves finally (and for the purposes of this suit solely ), into a question of the plaintiff's title. The defendants objected that the plaintiff could not make a good title, and had not in fact made … the property in his hands is his self-acquired property by the decision in Ahmedhhoy Ilubibhhoy v. Cassumbhoy Ahmedhhoy 12 B. 280. And this question breaks up into two main parts, first, whether this point was in fact
Vidyawanti Vs. Taken Dass and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1973
Reported in: ILR1974Delhi835; 1974RLR23
obtained as against them. Two different illustrations were given to explain what was meant by the expression 'independent title', (1) a person claiming independently of the landlord, and (2) a person putting forward a claim on behalf of … obtained as against them. Two different illustrations were given to explain what was meant by the expression 'independent title', (1) a person claiming independently of the landlord, and (2) a person putting forward a claim on behalf of
Smt. Jaya Ben and ors. Vs. Gaffar Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN200
the Assurance Company of the Bus, respondent No. 2 Akram Khan are taken on record through amended cause title- 1. Ajad Khan 2. Firoz Khan 7. In these special appeals, the learned Counsel for the appellants has based … and the following LRs of deceased respondent No. 2 Akram Khan are taken on record through amended cause title-1. Ajad Khan 2. Firoz Khan7. In these special appeals, the learned Counsel for the appellants has based his
Hover bars for counts · use +/− or drag to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free