Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: title Page 8 of about 651,880 results (0.040 seconds)

Puspa Devi and ors. Vs. Most. Anand Moyi Devi and ors.

Court : Patna

..... 13/16 of 1996 (annexure-6) praying inter alia to recall the order dated 31.7.1996 passed in the title suit on the ground that fraud has been practised as compromise petition was neither signed by defendant nos. ..... 186/84 whereunder compromise petition dated 30.7.1996 was accepted and the said title suit was decreed in terms of the aforesaid compromise petition.2. ..... averred in the written statement that the partition suit as framed should not proceed without payment of ad volorem court-fee as the subject matter of the suit is already concluded by the compromise decree dated 23.7.1945 passed in title suit no. ..... murli manohar shukla and naresh mohan thakur (both advocates) to defend and appear on behalf of defendants 2 and 2(a) in the aforesaid title suit. ..... while title suit no. ..... 1 to 5 filed title (partition) suit no. ..... case and has thereby refused to recall the order dated 31.7.1996 passed in title suit no. .....

Prabhat Lal Baruah Vs. on the Death of Kanak Chandra Baruah His L/R Il ...

Court : Guwahati

..... roy countered the submission made on behalf of the appellant to the effect that the plaintiff-respondents failed to ascertain his title in the pleadings as well as by the oral evidence, by placing reliance in the said hari singh's case (supra)wherein the apex court also held that mere lack of details in the pleadings cannot be a reason enough to set ..... lakshmanan reported in (1999) 9 scc 237 as relied by the learned counsel for the appellant, the apex court observed that a question of title arising on the basis of the interpretation of proved documents is a question of law and can be examined in second appeal by the high court. 10. ..... according to him, the plaintiff-respondents totally failed to prove his title in this case by adducing any evidence for which he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. ..... it is stated that there was no evidence to prove the title of the plaintiff-respondents. 8. ..... this necessitated the plaintiff to file the title suit no. ..... 2, guwahati in title suit no. ..... 2)), guwahati in title appeal no. .....

Srimant Kumar Choudhary Vs. Premlata Devi Ad ors.

Court : Patna

..... his suit for declaration of title over the suit properties detailed in schedule 1 to the plaint against the defendants has been dismissed holding that the suit was barred by law of limitation and that the plaintiff did not acquire title to the suit property on the strength of the sale-deed dated 28.1.1970 (ext. 3). ..... in the earlier litigation between ramchandra choudhary and another and champa choudharain vide title suit no. ..... 1 baijnath choudhary, son of late harihar choudhary, who was a co-plaintiff with ramchandra choudhary in title suit no. ..... 1 was not a party to title suit no. ..... title suit no. ..... title suit no. .....

Aghanu Khatway and ors. Vs. Srimati Devi and ors.

Court : Patna

..... also contended that admittedly the sale-deeds in favour of the defendant-appellants are prior in time than that of the plaintiff-respondents and, thus, ihe courts-below were not justified in declaring the plaintiffs' title and possession over the suit land by virtue of sale-deeds exhibit-1 & i/a executed later, more so by ignoring the rent-receipts issued by the state of bihar in favour of the defendant-appellants. ..... sinha, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has contended that the courts-below have declared the title of the plaintiffs on detailed consideration of the entire evidence independent of exhibit-14 also. ..... thus, this court finds that the question regarding plaintiffs' title and possession over the suit land stands concluded by the concurrent findings of fact of the two courts-below and does not warrant any interference much less when no substantial question of law is involved.6. ..... plaintiff-respondents filed suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit property mentioned in schedule. ..... gokul sold the suit land to one kanchan on 2-9-1914 and kanchan sold to the ancestors of the defendants, namely, jhari khatway on 5-7-1921 and by virtue of above the defendants and the plaintiffs claimed their respective title over the suit land. ..... for the parties and not that exhibit-14 has been mainly relied upon to declare the title of the plaintiffs. ..... this appeal is directed against the judgment of affirmance passed in title appeal no. .....

Rup Chand Mahato Vs. Gobinda Mahato

Court : Patna

..... c series would be evident to show that all the members are paying the rent separately in respect of lands belonging to them since long and so there is no unity of title and actually the separation was already affected in the life time of manbodhan mahato itself before the revisional survey record of rights and so the further partition of the said lands among the parties does ..... 17 of village shyamnagar and this fact finds recorded in the cadastral survey record of rights and the cadastral survey record of rights was published as back as in the year 1911 and so question of unity of title and possession after lapse of so many years when manobodhan mahato had already partitioned the land during his life time, does not arise.12. ..... 1 to 5 and 7 filed joint written statement claiming therein that there is no unity of title and unity of possession in respect of suit property. ..... it is further submitted that the land under the schedule b should have been held to be acquisition from the joint family funds and which is liable to be partitioned and there is unity of title and possession between the parties. ..... whether there is unity of title and possession in between both parties over the suit lands?7. ..... (b) whether is unity of title and possession between the parties over the suit lands?8. ..... this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th january, 1989 in title suit no. .....

Smt. Sarojini Bala Dasi Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and ors.

Court : Patna

..... the learned subordinate judge, while disposing of the title suit as well as the additional district judge by his final judgment in appeal, held that the real owner of the property was the husband, namely, duryodhan khan and title of kamla sundari dasi was ostensible. ..... the plaintiff claimed title on the basis of the purchase in the year 1963 from duryodhan khan who was a settlee of the property in suit. ..... 248 of 1985 whereby and whereunder a learned single judge of this court had set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court as well as that of the learned subordinate judge, in title suit no. .....

Surajdeo Prasad and ors. Vs. Rabi Bhushan Prasad and ors.

Court : Patna

..... learned counsel further submitted that the affidavit filed by the defendants and the facts disclosed therein prima facie shows that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit premises and, therefore, the court below ought to have granted leave to the defendants to contest the suit. 10. ..... krishnadeo prasad had no concern at all much less any right, title and interest or possession over the suit premises and his name designedly and purposely added just to create confusion. ..... disposing of the leave application has entered into the merit of the case of the parties and further that without giving any opportunity to lead evidence the court below virtually gave a finding on the question of title of the parties in respect of the suit premises. ..... according to the plaintiffs, the possession of the defendants, therefore, became permissive and they are stopped from asserting their right, title and interest over the suit premises. 5. ..... 218 and, therefore, he had no right, title and interest over the land, which was illegally transferred to the plaintiffs. 7. ..... from perusal of the facts of the instant case it appears that the defendants-petitioners have seriously disputed the title of the plaintiffs and have claimed title in themselves. ..... this application in revision is directed against the order dated 26-2-1997 passed by the learned munsif, latehar, in title (eviction) suit no. .....

Bidhan Paul Vs. Paresh Chandra Ghosh

Court : Guwahati

..... the facts of the case so far relevant to decide this second appeal could be summarised as below: the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter called the plaintiff) filed title suit seeking declaration of title, recovery of khash possession and mense profit contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff purchased the suit land from the legal heirs of the deceased dhananjoy paul in 1987 by separate two sale deeds. ..... both the courts dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that the plaintiff did not acquire title through the aforesaid sale deeds. 5. ..... defendant denied the plaintiffs title as well as possession, rather defendant averred that pursuant to an order of agreement for sale being entered with the legal heirs of dhananjoy paul, defendant had been possessing the suit land. 4. ..... the second appeal arises out of an order of dismissal dated 7.3.1994 passed by the first appellate court (learned district judge, west tripura, agartala) in title appeal no. ..... 1) in title suit no. .....

Smt. Khatrano Devi (D) by L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Hazari Sao

Court : Patna

..... hence on the basis of the above findings, the learned trial court held that the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property and on the basis of the aforesaid finding, the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on contest with cost.7. ..... whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of the title or recovery of possession, if so, to what extent ?11. ..... whether the plaintiff acquired title over all tin: property gifted to her by ramphal sao or only 1/3rd of the letter's property only ?9. ..... against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the original plaintiff preferred an appeal bearing title appeal nos. ..... 176 of 1977 confirming the judgment and decree dated 2-8-1977 passed by sri danial barla, munsif ii, patna in title suit no. ..... rekha kumari, 1st additional district judge, patna in title appeal no. .....

Tara Chand Sharma and anr., Vs. Uma Aggarwal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR2010P& H30

..... the finding of learned single judge that as against clear statement in the will that the testator had no issue, plea of testator having adopted a son was raised apart from plea of partition which affected the title of the testator to the bequeathed property and the fact that one of the trustees was allowed to plead his own tenancy on the property bequeathed for the benefit of the public have not been shown, in ..... (iv) plea of the executor that while deciding application under section 301, the court could not determine title of the property, it was held that while deciding the conduct of the executor, all necessary facts could be seen. ..... intzamia committee 1972 plr 654, to submit that under section 14 of the trust act, trustees could not set up title adverse to the interest of beneficiary; judgment of honble supreme court in chiranjilal v. ..... in the good of to submit that title tomrs. ..... jasjit singh : 1993 (2) scc 507 to submit that under section 213 of the succession act, role of probate court is only of deciding of factum of will and not to decide the question of title. ..... title and even natural heir cannot question: (1993) 2 scc 507 the probate which is conclusive as to due execution and validity of will.4. .....