1. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of his right and title over a plot of land, claiming he purchased it in 1991 based on a registered sale deed (Ex.A1) executed by the defendant No.1 who was a partner in Shobha Estates.
2. However, the defendants claim right and title based on subsequent sale deeds - defendant Nos. 2 and 3 claim right based on a 2009 sale deed (Ex.A2) executed by defendant No.1, and defendant No. 4 claims right based on a 2010 purchase from defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
3. The court must determine which party has valid right and title to the property based on the evidence and documents provided
The document summarizes a court case involving Devangana Kalita appealing the rejection of her bail application. Some key points:
- Kalita was arrested in relation to 4 FIRs regarding protests against the CAA and NRC acts, and has received bail in 3 but remains in custody for the 4th (subject FIR).
- The allegations against her are that as part of protest groups, she instigated violence in Muslim areas of Delhi in February 2020. However, she denies being present at the sites of violence and claims her call/location records will exonerate her.
- Her lawyers argue the charges against her are vague and she poses no flight risk or evidence tampering risk so should be granted bail
The document is a court judgment summarizing the case against Natasha Narwal. Key details:
- Narwal is accused of instigating protests against the CAA/NRC that led to riots in Delhi in February 2020.
- She was part of activist groups including Pinjra Tod and attended meetings where more extreme protests like blocking roads were discussed.
- However, her defense argues she was merely protesting peacefully and not present during any riots or violence. She claims the police evidence is fabricated and she played no role in any conspiracy or riots.
- The court will determine if Narwal qualifies for bail based on the evidence and charges against her under the UAPA anti-terrorism law
This document is a high court judgment regarding an appeal filed by Asif Iqbal Tanha against an order rejecting his bail application in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Some key points:
1) Tanha, a student, was arrested for his alleged role in organizing and instigating the riots based on his involvement with the Jamia Coordination Committee.
2) The police allege Tanha was a key conspirator and mastermind behind the riots, and that he mobilized crowds and gave instructions to spread messages inciting violence.
3) Tanha has filed this appeal challenging the rejection of his second bail application. The court discusses the legislative competence to enact the Unlawful Activities
The PowerPoint presentation is uploaded on behalf of Moot Court Association, Faculty of Law, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University. It will help the law students immensely in preparation of Memorials for either Moot Court Competitions or Internal assessment.
Source of income of complainant has to be proved in 138 ni act casesanjsur28
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal regarding a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant had alleged that the appellant borrowed Rs. 14 lakhs in cash in 1997 and issued post-dated cheques that were dishonored. The trial court acquitted the appellant, finding that the complainant did not prove the source of the loan amount. The High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court judgment. It found that the trial court's conclusion that the complainant did not prove a legally recoverable debt was based on proper appreciation of evidence.
This document is a court order summarizing a criminal revision petition filed by the State against an order directing the police to register separate FIRs based on the complaints of the respondent Nishar Ahmed. The court order discusses the legal principles around clubbing of complaints and registration of separate FIRs. It notes that while similar complaints can be clubbed to protect the accused, if the incidents are different with different accused, separate FIRs should be registered to allow for separate investigations and trials. After reviewing the facts and complaints made by Nishar Ahmed regarding two separate incidents of rioting on different dates, the court finds that his later complaint was not properly clubbed with an earlier FIR and orders investigation of his complaints in separate FIRs.
The document summarizes the key details from a court case involving multiple complaints related to riots in North-East Delhi. It notes that two of the complaints could not have been clubbed together in this case based on the details provided. For the third complaint by Nisar Ahmed, it provides context on his repeated attempts to file complaints with the police about the riots he witnessed on two separate dates, and the threats he faced which led him to approach the court. The court ultimately allowed his petition to have his complaint registered as a separate FIR and not treated as part of this case, based on the details he provided about the two separate dates of incidents.
The document summarizes a court case involving Devangana Kalita appealing the rejection of her bail application. Some key points:
- Kalita was arrested in relation to 4 FIRs regarding protests against the CAA and NRC acts, and has received bail in 3 but remains in custody for the 4th (subject FIR).
- The allegations against her are that as part of protest groups, she instigated violence in Muslim areas of Delhi in February 2020. However, she denies being present at the sites of violence and claims her call/location records will exonerate her.
- Her lawyers argue the charges against her are vague and she poses no flight risk or evidence tampering risk so should be granted bail
The document is a court judgment summarizing the case against Natasha Narwal. Key details:
- Narwal is accused of instigating protests against the CAA/NRC that led to riots in Delhi in February 2020.
- She was part of activist groups including Pinjra Tod and attended meetings where more extreme protests like blocking roads were discussed.
- However, her defense argues she was merely protesting peacefully and not present during any riots or violence. She claims the police evidence is fabricated and she played no role in any conspiracy or riots.
- The court will determine if Narwal qualifies for bail based on the evidence and charges against her under the UAPA anti-terrorism law
This document is a high court judgment regarding an appeal filed by Asif Iqbal Tanha against an order rejecting his bail application in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Some key points:
1) Tanha, a student, was arrested for his alleged role in organizing and instigating the riots based on his involvement with the Jamia Coordination Committee.
2) The police allege Tanha was a key conspirator and mastermind behind the riots, and that he mobilized crowds and gave instructions to spread messages inciting violence.
3) Tanha has filed this appeal challenging the rejection of his second bail application. The court discusses the legislative competence to enact the Unlawful Activities
The PowerPoint presentation is uploaded on behalf of Moot Court Association, Faculty of Law, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University. It will help the law students immensely in preparation of Memorials for either Moot Court Competitions or Internal assessment.
Source of income of complainant has to be proved in 138 ni act casesanjsur28
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal regarding a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant had alleged that the appellant borrowed Rs. 14 lakhs in cash in 1997 and issued post-dated cheques that were dishonored. The trial court acquitted the appellant, finding that the complainant did not prove the source of the loan amount. The High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court judgment. It found that the trial court's conclusion that the complainant did not prove a legally recoverable debt was based on proper appreciation of evidence.
This document is a court order summarizing a criminal revision petition filed by the State against an order directing the police to register separate FIRs based on the complaints of the respondent Nishar Ahmed. The court order discusses the legal principles around clubbing of complaints and registration of separate FIRs. It notes that while similar complaints can be clubbed to protect the accused, if the incidents are different with different accused, separate FIRs should be registered to allow for separate investigations and trials. After reviewing the facts and complaints made by Nishar Ahmed regarding two separate incidents of rioting on different dates, the court finds that his later complaint was not properly clubbed with an earlier FIR and orders investigation of his complaints in separate FIRs.
The document summarizes the key details from a court case involving multiple complaints related to riots in North-East Delhi. It notes that two of the complaints could not have been clubbed together in this case based on the details provided. For the third complaint by Nisar Ahmed, it provides context on his repeated attempts to file complaints with the police about the riots he witnessed on two separate dates, and the threats he faced which led him to approach the court. The court ultimately allowed his petition to have his complaint registered as a separate FIR and not treated as part of this case, based on the details he provided about the two separate dates of incidents.
1) Amit Goswami was charged under sections 147/148/149/457/435/436/454/380 IPC for his involvement in a riot case registered under FIR No. 121/2020 at PS Bhajanpura on February 25, 2020.
2) Goswami applied for bail arguing parity as two co-accused granted bail earlier for same role. Prosecution opposed bail citing identification by two police witnesses.
3) The court granted bail to Goswami noting he was not named in FIR, police witnesses delayed reporting and their credibility was doubtful, and trial would take long time. Bail granted on furnishing a bond and following certain conditions.
Ashok aggarwal judgment in criminal appeal no. 1837 of 2013.aspAshok Kumar Aggarwal
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal regarding a case involving forgery allegations. Respondent no. 2 had applied for pardon and to become an approver in the case. The Special Judge granted this request, but the High Court set aside this order. The key issues debated were: (1) whether the Special Judge properly considered respondent no. 2's culpability compared to the other accused; and (2) whether new evidence from a reply to a letter rogatory affected the assessment of culpability. The Supreme Court considered the rival arguments on both sides and reviewed the record to determine if the Special Judge's order should be upheld or if the High Court's decision was correct.
1) The document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the violence that took place in Delhi in February 2020.
2) The petitioner, Mohd Ibrahim, seeks bail in an FIR related to the violence and is accused of various offenses including murder.
3) The prosecution argues that CCTV footage shows the petitioner at the scene of crime near the time of incident carrying a sword, and his mobile location also places him there, while the defense argues the footage and locations are contradictory and he had no role in the violence.
The respondent argues that:
1) The principle of res judicata does not apply because the issues and reliefs sought in the first and second suits were different.
2) The appellant's claim for arrears is time-barred under the Limitation Act as more than 3 years have passed.
3) The respondent cannot be held liable for the previous owner's electricity dues because there was no agreement or terms to that effect.
The High Court of Kerala recalled three previous orders granting petitions to quash criminal cases relating to offenses of rape and under the POCSO Act. In recalling the orders, the Court noted it had failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents holding that cases involving offenses like rape cannot be quashed solely due to settlements between the parties. While the petitioners argued the Court could not recall signed orders, the Court held this was not a review but rather pointing out a legal omission. The cases will be reheard in detail after the summer vacation.
1) The petitioner had appeared for and passed Class 10 and 12 exams conducted by CBSE using the name Rishu Jaiswal. The petitioner later changed his name to Kabir Jaiswal through a gazette notification.
2) The petitioner sought to change the name on his certificates issued by CBSE from Rishu Jaiswal to Kabir Jaiswal. However, CBSE rejected this, citing rules that do not allow name changes post-result declaration.
3) The court examined previous judgments and CBSE rules on name changes. It observed that neither rule cited by CBSE allows post-result name changes, but name is a matter of personal identity and expression protected by the constitution.
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7ZahidManiyar
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Shifa-ur-Rehman, President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia, who was arrested in connection with an FIR related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The petition challenges an order extending the period of investigation and the petitioner's detention. The court heard arguments from both sides on issues such as whether the petitioner was denied the right to consult his lawyer and whether the reasons provided for extension were sufficient. The court considered the matter in light of relevant sections of the UAPA and precedents.
This document outlines an adjudication proceeding between McNally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd., Tantia Constructions Ltd. (the claimants) and Bihar State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (the employer) regarding a contract for a water supply project. The key points of dispute are whether delays in project completion were due to faults by the contractors or employer, and if the parties should proceed with an extended completion timeline. The claimants argue delays were largely due to issues outside their control like unclear site locations, unapproved designs, and lack of employer cooperation.
This document is a court judgment denying bail to Shahrukh Pathan, who is accused of firing a pistol and leading a mob during religious riots in Delhi on February 24, 2020. The court reviewed evidence including video footage and photos showing Pathan holding a pistol and firing shots toward the complainant head constable. While the defense argued there was delay in registering the FIR and Pathan was being made a scapegoat, the court found the allegations against Pathan for participating in and inciting the riots to be grave enough to deny him bail at this stage of the trial.
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal before Supreme Court of India vide D...Om Prakash Poddar
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal by way of motion against the Lodgment Order dated 16.02.2017 in W.P.(Crl.)D.No.3913 of 2017 issued by the Registrar, Supreme Court of India under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 along with Affidavit and Annexures P-1 to P-5 filed before Supreme Court of India vide D.NO. 45930 dated 05.06.2017
This document summarizes three connected habeas corpus petitions filed by Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah challenging their detention under the National Security Act, 1980. According to the document:
- Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah were arrested for allegedly cutting and selling beef in violation of cow slaughter laws, which disturbed public order.
- The District Magistrate of Sitapur ordered their detention under the National Security Act, citing the likelihood they would be released on bail and continue disturbing public order related to cow slaughter issues.
- The petitioners argue there was no evidence they would threaten public order and their detention violated their fundamental rights. They have petitioned for their release and to qu
A one of a kind gated residential development - spread over in approximately 110 acres of sprawling green - comprising exquisitely appointed Villas, in Sector-66, Gurgaon.
Call NOw +91-9250404176
www.axiomlandbase.in
The petitioner, a social worker dealing with child abuse cases, has filed a public interest litigation arguing that Section 40 of the POCSO Act and Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules, which provide for participation of victims in legal proceedings, are not being properly implemented. The petitioner contends that victims and their families are often not informed about bail applications and other matters in criminal cases under the POCSO Act. The petitioner seeks guidelines to ensure strict compliance of the victim participation provisions, and for Section 439(1-A) of the CrPC relating to informing victims about bail hearings to also apply to POCSO Act cases.
This document is a submission of written arguments to the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition. It summarizes the petitioner's arguments that various government authorities have conspired over 12 years to violate his fundamental rights and harass him through frivolous legal cases and actions like trying to cut off his gas supply. The petitioner argues that 13 respondents, including government officials and his alleged wife, should be issued notices and the harassment stopped to protect his right to life. He provides details of past legal proceedings and harassment to support his case.
Application form OF puri emerald bay 8287494393Real Estate
Name
Date
Signature
2. Amount Received:
Draft / Cheque No.
Date
Bank
Amount (`)
Sales Manager:
Name
Date
Signature
3. Channel Partner Details:
Name
Code
4. Other Instructions:
5. Remarks:
6. Signature of Approving Authority:
7. Date of Approval:
8. Allotment Letter No.:
9. Date of Allotment Letter:
10. Waiting List No. (if rejected):
11. Date of placing in Waiting List:
12. Reason for rejection
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case involving two appellants, Pravat Chandra Mohanty and Pratap Kumar Choudhury, who were convicted of assaulting and causing the death of Kasinath Naik. The Supreme Court heard arguments from counsel for the appellants, the state of Odisha, and the legal representatives of the deceased. The appellants deposited compensation in court and all parties agreed to compound the offense of conviction under Section 324 IPC. The Supreme Court considered converting the Section 324 conviction to Section 323 or substituting imprisonment with a fine, given the appellants' advanced age.
The Purchaser purchased Ground Floor alone and while purchasing Ground Floor the Seller agreed not to construct Second Floor. But the First Floor Purchaser, planned to construct Second Floor and the Ground Floor Purchaser success before the Court
This document is a court judgment from the Court of Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. Barshi at Barshi, India. It details a lawsuit filed by Trimbak Aagatrao against the Grampanchayat Khandvi and several individuals. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the disputed land and sought an order directing the Grampanchayat to record his name and an injunction preventing obstruction of his possession. The court examined documents establishing the plaintiff's title and found in his favor, directing the Grampanchayat to record his name and restraining the other defendants from obstructing his possession. Costs were not awarded to either party to prevent further conflict.
This document contains a written statement on behalf of Defendant No. 1 in response to a civil suit filed by the plaintiffs. The defendant argues that the suit is not maintainable and is an abuse of process. It is stated that the plaintiffs are the defendant's real sisters who gave up their rights to the disputed property in 1983 in favor of the defendant. It is further stated that the plaintiffs consented to the defendant being the absolute owner of the property and had no objection when he decided to sell it in 2009. The defendant denies all allegations made by the plaintiffs and requests that the suit be dismissed with costs.
The petitioner seeks to quash criminal proceedings against him for offenses under Sections 172, 173 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(F), 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The allegations are that the petitioner, who owns 5 acres 4 guntas of land, wrongfully claimed ownership of 3 acres 3 guntas of the second respondent's neighboring land and obtained revenue records in his name. However, the court finds that the dispute appears to be civil in nature regarding ownership of land between two parties. Further, the ingredients to prove offenses under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act are not made out based on the facts.
1) Amit Goswami was charged under sections 147/148/149/457/435/436/454/380 IPC for his involvement in a riot case registered under FIR No. 121/2020 at PS Bhajanpura on February 25, 2020.
2) Goswami applied for bail arguing parity as two co-accused granted bail earlier for same role. Prosecution opposed bail citing identification by two police witnesses.
3) The court granted bail to Goswami noting he was not named in FIR, police witnesses delayed reporting and their credibility was doubtful, and trial would take long time. Bail granted on furnishing a bond and following certain conditions.
Ashok aggarwal judgment in criminal appeal no. 1837 of 2013.aspAshok Kumar Aggarwal
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal regarding a case involving forgery allegations. Respondent no. 2 had applied for pardon and to become an approver in the case. The Special Judge granted this request, but the High Court set aside this order. The key issues debated were: (1) whether the Special Judge properly considered respondent no. 2's culpability compared to the other accused; and (2) whether new evidence from a reply to a letter rogatory affected the assessment of culpability. The Supreme Court considered the rival arguments on both sides and reviewed the record to determine if the Special Judge's order should be upheld or if the High Court's decision was correct.
1) The document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the violence that took place in Delhi in February 2020.
2) The petitioner, Mohd Ibrahim, seeks bail in an FIR related to the violence and is accused of various offenses including murder.
3) The prosecution argues that CCTV footage shows the petitioner at the scene of crime near the time of incident carrying a sword, and his mobile location also places him there, while the defense argues the footage and locations are contradictory and he had no role in the violence.
The respondent argues that:
1) The principle of res judicata does not apply because the issues and reliefs sought in the first and second suits were different.
2) The appellant's claim for arrears is time-barred under the Limitation Act as more than 3 years have passed.
3) The respondent cannot be held liable for the previous owner's electricity dues because there was no agreement or terms to that effect.
The High Court of Kerala recalled three previous orders granting petitions to quash criminal cases relating to offenses of rape and under the POCSO Act. In recalling the orders, the Court noted it had failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents holding that cases involving offenses like rape cannot be quashed solely due to settlements between the parties. While the petitioners argued the Court could not recall signed orders, the Court held this was not a review but rather pointing out a legal omission. The cases will be reheard in detail after the summer vacation.
1) The petitioner had appeared for and passed Class 10 and 12 exams conducted by CBSE using the name Rishu Jaiswal. The petitioner later changed his name to Kabir Jaiswal through a gazette notification.
2) The petitioner sought to change the name on his certificates issued by CBSE from Rishu Jaiswal to Kabir Jaiswal. However, CBSE rejected this, citing rules that do not allow name changes post-result declaration.
3) The court examined previous judgments and CBSE rules on name changes. It observed that neither rule cited by CBSE allows post-result name changes, but name is a matter of personal identity and expression protected by the constitution.
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7ZahidManiyar
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Shifa-ur-Rehman, President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia, who was arrested in connection with an FIR related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The petition challenges an order extending the period of investigation and the petitioner's detention. The court heard arguments from both sides on issues such as whether the petitioner was denied the right to consult his lawyer and whether the reasons provided for extension were sufficient. The court considered the matter in light of relevant sections of the UAPA and precedents.
This document outlines an adjudication proceeding between McNally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd., Tantia Constructions Ltd. (the claimants) and Bihar State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (the employer) regarding a contract for a water supply project. The key points of dispute are whether delays in project completion were due to faults by the contractors or employer, and if the parties should proceed with an extended completion timeline. The claimants argue delays were largely due to issues outside their control like unclear site locations, unapproved designs, and lack of employer cooperation.
This document is a court judgment denying bail to Shahrukh Pathan, who is accused of firing a pistol and leading a mob during religious riots in Delhi on February 24, 2020. The court reviewed evidence including video footage and photos showing Pathan holding a pistol and firing shots toward the complainant head constable. While the defense argued there was delay in registering the FIR and Pathan was being made a scapegoat, the court found the allegations against Pathan for participating in and inciting the riots to be grave enough to deny him bail at this stage of the trial.
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal before Supreme Court of India vide D...Om Prakash Poddar
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal by way of motion against the Lodgment Order dated 16.02.2017 in W.P.(Crl.)D.No.3913 of 2017 issued by the Registrar, Supreme Court of India under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 along with Affidavit and Annexures P-1 to P-5 filed before Supreme Court of India vide D.NO. 45930 dated 05.06.2017
This document summarizes three connected habeas corpus petitions filed by Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah challenging their detention under the National Security Act, 1980. According to the document:
- Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah were arrested for allegedly cutting and selling beef in violation of cow slaughter laws, which disturbed public order.
- The District Magistrate of Sitapur ordered their detention under the National Security Act, citing the likelihood they would be released on bail and continue disturbing public order related to cow slaughter issues.
- The petitioners argue there was no evidence they would threaten public order and their detention violated their fundamental rights. They have petitioned for their release and to qu
A one of a kind gated residential development - spread over in approximately 110 acres of sprawling green - comprising exquisitely appointed Villas, in Sector-66, Gurgaon.
Call NOw +91-9250404176
www.axiomlandbase.in
The petitioner, a social worker dealing with child abuse cases, has filed a public interest litigation arguing that Section 40 of the POCSO Act and Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules, which provide for participation of victims in legal proceedings, are not being properly implemented. The petitioner contends that victims and their families are often not informed about bail applications and other matters in criminal cases under the POCSO Act. The petitioner seeks guidelines to ensure strict compliance of the victim participation provisions, and for Section 439(1-A) of the CrPC relating to informing victims about bail hearings to also apply to POCSO Act cases.
This document is a submission of written arguments to the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition. It summarizes the petitioner's arguments that various government authorities have conspired over 12 years to violate his fundamental rights and harass him through frivolous legal cases and actions like trying to cut off his gas supply. The petitioner argues that 13 respondents, including government officials and his alleged wife, should be issued notices and the harassment stopped to protect his right to life. He provides details of past legal proceedings and harassment to support his case.
Application form OF puri emerald bay 8287494393Real Estate
Name
Date
Signature
2. Amount Received:
Draft / Cheque No.
Date
Bank
Amount (`)
Sales Manager:
Name
Date
Signature
3. Channel Partner Details:
Name
Code
4. Other Instructions:
5. Remarks:
6. Signature of Approving Authority:
7. Date of Approval:
8. Allotment Letter No.:
9. Date of Allotment Letter:
10. Waiting List No. (if rejected):
11. Date of placing in Waiting List:
12. Reason for rejection
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case involving two appellants, Pravat Chandra Mohanty and Pratap Kumar Choudhury, who were convicted of assaulting and causing the death of Kasinath Naik. The Supreme Court heard arguments from counsel for the appellants, the state of Odisha, and the legal representatives of the deceased. The appellants deposited compensation in court and all parties agreed to compound the offense of conviction under Section 324 IPC. The Supreme Court considered converting the Section 324 conviction to Section 323 or substituting imprisonment with a fine, given the appellants' advanced age.
The Purchaser purchased Ground Floor alone and while purchasing Ground Floor the Seller agreed not to construct Second Floor. But the First Floor Purchaser, planned to construct Second Floor and the Ground Floor Purchaser success before the Court
This document is a court judgment from the Court of Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. Barshi at Barshi, India. It details a lawsuit filed by Trimbak Aagatrao against the Grampanchayat Khandvi and several individuals. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the disputed land and sought an order directing the Grampanchayat to record his name and an injunction preventing obstruction of his possession. The court examined documents establishing the plaintiff's title and found in his favor, directing the Grampanchayat to record his name and restraining the other defendants from obstructing his possession. Costs were not awarded to either party to prevent further conflict.
This document contains a written statement on behalf of Defendant No. 1 in response to a civil suit filed by the plaintiffs. The defendant argues that the suit is not maintainable and is an abuse of process. It is stated that the plaintiffs are the defendant's real sisters who gave up their rights to the disputed property in 1983 in favor of the defendant. It is further stated that the plaintiffs consented to the defendant being the absolute owner of the property and had no objection when he decided to sell it in 2009. The defendant denies all allegations made by the plaintiffs and requests that the suit be dismissed with costs.
The petitioner seeks to quash criminal proceedings against him for offenses under Sections 172, 173 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(F), 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The allegations are that the petitioner, who owns 5 acres 4 guntas of land, wrongfully claimed ownership of 3 acres 3 guntas of the second respondent's neighboring land and obtained revenue records in his name. However, the court finds that the dispute appears to be civil in nature regarding ownership of land between two parties. Further, the ingredients to prove offenses under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act are not made out based on the facts.
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal regarding a domestic violence case and issues of interpreting the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The appellant's son was married to the respondent, and they lived together in the appellant's house. However, marital issues arose and the son filed for divorce. The respondent then filed a domestic violence complaint. The appellant subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking to remove the respondent from the property. The trial court ruled in favor of the appellant, but the high court overturned this decision and remanded the case. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
This document is a court judgment regarding a civil revision petition filed to challenge a trial court's order rejecting the defendant's application to frame a preliminary issue in a civil suit. The trial court had refused to frame a preliminary issue on whether the suit was maintainable in view of there being no consideration for the alleged oral agreement between the parties as per Section 25 of the Contract Act. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the trial court was justified in finding that the issue of consideration involved mixed questions of law and fact that could not be decided in a preliminary issue. The High Court also held that the revision was not maintainable against an order refusing to frame a preliminary issue.
1. Amit Gupta and Neha Gupta filed a petition seeking divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. They got married in 2011 and have one daughter together but have been living separately since 2012 due to temperamental differences.
3. They reached an agreement on settlement terms including payment of money, return of belongings, custody of daughter, and withdrawal of legal cases.
This document provides a summary of a court case regarding a dispute over inheritance of agricultural land and a house. Key details:
- The plaintiffs were siblings - the sister (respondent) was seeking partition of ancestral property inherited from their father, while the brother (appellant) claimed he solely owned it due to a will.
- The court found that the property was proven to be ancestral property inherited from the grandfather, not self-acquired by the father. The will deed provided by the brother was not properly proven.
- Therefore, the court upheld the original judgment that the sister was entitled to half the property as a legal heir under Hindu succession laws, and ordered the property be partitioned between the siblings
This document is a court order summarizing a bail application hearing for a case involving charges of rape, fraud, criminal intimidation, and unlawful religious conversion. The applicant, Sonu Rajpoot, sought bail while awaiting trial. The court summarized the arguments of the applicant's lawyer, who argued that the victim was a consenting adult and the applicant was falsely accused due to a religious conversion dispute. The prosecution opposed bail. Considering the circumstances, lack of evidence tampering, and consent between the applicant and victim, the court granted bail to the applicant with conditions including not harassing the victim.
Compilation of Judgments wherein it is held that "Suit is not maintainable"Legal
Compilation of Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and High Courts, wherein it is held that "Suit not is maintainable". This document will be helpful for those who are looking for a complilation of judgments whrein it is held that "Suit not is maintainable" on the one ground or the other.
Gauhati hc 482 inherent juris for foreigner ordersabrangsabrang
1) The petitioner, Md. Amir Khan, filed a petition seeking to quash the order that convicted him under the Foreigners Act for illegally residing in India.
2) The trial court had framed charges and the petitioner had pled guilty, receiving a two year prison sentence and fine.
3) The petitioner now claims he is not a foreigner but a citizen of Tripura, India based on birth and school documents. However, he did not provide these documents during the investigation or trial.
4) The high court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality in the trial court's order since the petitioner pled guilty without presenting any evidence and the documents are produced only after appealing the conviction.
Madras HC - Illegal resolution was passed by the Bar Association.pdfsabrangsabrang
The document is an order from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court regarding a bail petition.
There were 3 petitioners/accused seeking bail who were charged with offenses against the defacto complainant, a practicing advocate, and his wife. The Karaikudi Bar Association had passed a resolution directing its members not to file any bail application in the case.
The High Court granted permission for the bail petition to be filed directly with the High Court given the exceptional circumstances of the bar association resolution preventing the petitioners' counsel from representing them. The High Court also granted bail to the 3 petitioners based on factors such as the petitioners' surrender and time already served, and lack of serious
The petitioner Pushpalatha S filed a petition against respondent Guruswamy S under Section 125(1) of CrPC seeking maintenance. The petitioner and respondent got married on 12-08-2010 in a mass marriage ceremony registered in the Sub-Registrar office of Chamarajanagar. However, the respondent left the petitioner and started living separately without reasonable cause after 2 months of marriage. The petitioner has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. Hence, the petitioner requested that the respondent be directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000 for her livelihood.
This include some important formats applicable in Indian courts and is very essential for Law Students.
These formats may even be translated to the local (scheduled) indian languages and may be used in the respective courts.
- The petitioner challenged a notice issued against him under the U.P. Goondas Act for allegedly threatening a Deputy Commissioner.
- The petitioner had a long running legal dispute with the state government over a property that was transferred to the petitioner in 1999 but remained occupied by the Trade Tax Department.
- After a series of court cases, the petitioner was found to be the lawful owner of the property and took possession in 2010. However, the district administration continued to object and interfere with the petitioner's use of the property.
- The instant petition sought to quash the Goondas Act notice, arguing it was a tactic to coerce the petitioner regarding the property and there was no basis for branding the petitioner a
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of Bangladesh judgment regarding a dispute over the sale of commercial property. The key details are:
1) The government put up abandoned commercial property for sale through a tender process. The respondents submitted the highest bid but failed to pay within the specified time period due to ongoing litigation.
2) After the litigation ended, the respondents requested to complete the sale but the government cancelled the contract, claiming the respondents failed to pay on time.
3) The High Court ruled in favor of the respondents and directed the government to complete the sale. The government appealed, arguing the writ petition was not maintainable and the contract ended due to non-payment.
4) The Supreme Court
Dear Sir/Madam! I am a professional steno-typist and computer operator. I am ready to do accurate and high quality typing and copy paste. Confident to deliver the best output as per your requirement. Therefore, please share the documents that you are willing to type. Kindly let me know your scheduled time. I am determined to complete your work ahead of schedule. So give me job with interest. Thank you very much.
Dear Sir/Madam! I am a professional steno-typist and computer operator. I am ready to do accurate and high quality typing and copy paste. Confident to deliver the best output as per your requirement. Therefore, please share the documents that you are willing to type. Kindly let me know your scheduled time. I am determined to complete your work ahead of schedule. So give me job with interest. Thank you very much.
The intern summarizes their 2-month internship at the office of Sumit Sarna & Partners. They assisted with drafting various legal documents, thoroughly reviewing case files and documents, researching case law, attending client meetings and virtual/physical court hearings. The intern learned how to draft legal notices, complaints, affidavits, and got familiar with concepts like annexures and exhibits. They observed cases related to cheque bouncing, domestic violence, rent disputes, and probate. The intern visited various courts in Delhi including Rohini, Dwarka, Tis Hazari, High Court, and Patiala House. They felt the internship provided a good initial exposure to practical legal work but more experience is still needed.
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
OS No 261/2015
1. PJCJ,ADONI 1 O.S.No.261/2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI.
Tuesday, this the 18th
day of June, 2019
Present: - Sri. T. Kesava,
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.
O.S.N0.261/2015
S.M.Lakshmi Reddy ….Plaintiff
Vs
1. B.V.Subba Rao
2. K.Eranna
3.K.Nagarani
4.G.Bramhananda Reddy
5.B.Govardhan Reddy
6.G.Aneel … Defendants
(The defendant Nos.5 and 6 are added as per the orders in
I.A.NO.1376/2017 dt.22.02.2018).
This suit is coming on for final hearing before me in the presence
of Sri. M.Sreddhar Reddy and M.Satya Sri Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.
K.Venkata Swamy advocate for defendant Nos.2 and 3 and Sri. L.K.Jeevan
Singh Advocate for defendant No.4 and Defendant NOS.1,5,6 remained
exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court
delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
This suit is filed for declaration of right and title of plaintiff, over
suit schedule property and to declare that the registered sale deeds executed
among defendant Nos.1 to 4 are not binding on the plaintiff and with
consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants their
men and agents from interfering with possession and enjoyment of plaintiff
over suit schedule property.
2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:- The
plaintiff purchased suit schedule property from defendant No.1 who is a
partner of Shobha Estate. The plaint schedule property is in survey No. 163 of
Mandagiri Panchayath Sadapuram village which is part of L.P.No.736/1984.
2. PJCJ,ADONI 2 O.S.No.261/2015
The Shoba Estates purchased land in survey No.163 of Mandagiri village and
formed lay out by taking approved plan from concerned authorities. The
plaintiff joined as a member in the scheme formulated by Shobha Estates and
paid entire sale consideration. The defendant NO.1 who is one of the partners
of Shobha Estates executed a register sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff on
19.10.1991 and delivered possession of property to him. Recently, the
plaintiff on obtaining E.C. for loan came to know that the defendant No.1 who
is representing on behalf of partner of Shobha Estates again sold suit
schedule property jointly to defendant No.2 and 3 under a registered sale
deeds dated 27.04.1991. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 cannot get any right
and title over the suit property as the plaintiff had already purchased the
same in the year 2009 itself from the defendant No.1. Again, the defendant
Nos.2 and 3 jointly sold suit schedule property to the defendant No.4 under
registered sale deed dated 18.03.2010. The plaintiff is absolute owner of suit
schedule property and the defendants have no right and title over the same.
The defendant No.1 who has divested with the property has no right to
execute sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and the defendant
Nos.2 and 3 cannot not convey any better title in favour of the defendant
No.4 under above referred sale deeds. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice
on 10.06.2015 for cancellation of above sale deeds but the defendants did
not respond to the said legal notice. Taking advantage of above the
defendants tried to interfere with possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over
suit schedule property. The plaintiff came to know that after receiving legal
notice and after filing this suit Defendant No.4 executed a GPA on 26.08.2015
in favour of defendant No.5 authorizing him to alienate suit schedule
property. Again, taking advantage of registered GPA the said Govardhan
Reddy(D5) sold suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated
7.08.2017 in favour of defendant No.6. The plaintiff obtained orders in
I.A.No.261/2015 restraining the defendant No.4 from alienating suit schedule
property. Violating the orders of this court the defendant NO.5 sold away suit
3. PJCJ,ADONI 3 O.S.No.261/2015
schedule property in favour of defendant No.6 as such sale deed in the name
of defendant No.6 is illegal transaction and not binding on the plaintiff.
Therefore, having no option the plaintiff filed this suit for reliefs refereed to
supra.
3. The defendant No.4 filed his written statement separately
defendant Nos.2 and 3 together filed a written statement whereas defendant
No.1,5 and 6 remained exparte.
4. The averments of written statement of defendant Nos.2
and 3 in brief are as follows:- The defendant Nos.2 and 3 admitted that
suit schedule property bearing plot Nos.5 situated in survey No.163 of
Mandagiri Village Sadapuram Gram Panchayath approved in L.P.No.736/1984.
They denied remaining allegations in the plaint and specifically pleaded that
the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not aware of sale deed executed by defendant
No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. They further pleaded that the defendant Nos.2
and 3 are subscribers of Shobha Estate membership No.383 and paid all
installments to Shobha Estates. Later on, after verifying Encumbrance
certificate at Sub-Registrar Office Adoni they obtained register sale deed from
defendant No.1. Since the date of purchase the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are in
possession and enjoyment of suit property without any interruption. They
approached Sadapuram Panchayath and obtained assessment number from
grama panchayath but they stated that according to panchayath rules no
taxes are being collected for open site. Later on, as the defendants are in
need of money they sold suit property to the defendant No.4 and delivered
possession of the same to him. They verified the Encumbrance Certificate at
Sub-Registrar Office, Adoni and they have taken proper care in verifying prior
encumbrance from the suit property. The plaintiff is not member of Shobha
Estates and only to grab suit property the defendant NO.1 colluded with
plaintiff and created sale deed. The plaintiff obtained a fake document and
4. PJCJ,ADONI 4 O.S.No.261/2015
availed loan by misleading bank authorities. The plaintiff is never in
possession of suit property. Therefore, this suit is liable to be dismissed with
costs.
5. The averments of written statement of the defendant
No.4 in brief are as follows: The defendant No.4 denied all the allegations
in the plaint and specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is not in possession of
suit property on the date of filing of this suit and this suit is barred by
limitation. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are subscribers of Shobha Estate with
Membership No.383 and paid all installments. After payment of all
installments the defendant No.1 executed sale deed in favour of defendant
Nos.2 and 3 on 27.04.2009. Since the date of purchase the defendant Nos.2
and 3 were in possession and enjoyment of suit property. The suit property is
an open site, therefore no land revenue is being collected. Later on, after
verifying Encumbrance certificates and link documents the defendant No.4
purchased suit property on 18.03.2010 for valuable consideration. The
defendant No.4 is an bonfied purchaser who are put in possession of suit
property by defendant Nos.2 and 3. Since, the date of purchase the
defendant No.4 is in possession and enjoyment of suit property with absolute
rights. The plaintiff is not member of Shobha Estate in order to causing
troubles to defendant No.4 the plaintiff filed this suit a false allegations.
Hence, this suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. Based on pleadings of both parties following issues are
framed for trail.
1. Whether this suit is barred by limitation ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his right and
title over suit property as prayed for?
3. Whether the sale deeds executed among defendant Nos.1 to 4
in respect of suit property are not binding on the plaintiff?
5. PJCJ,ADONI 5 O.S.No.261/2015
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as
prayed for?
5. To what relief ?
7. To prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff examined as P.W.1
besides examining one D.Ranga Reddy a 3rd
party to the suit as P.W.2. The
plaintiff got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 in support of his case.
8. To prove the case of defendants, the defendant No.4 is
examined as D.W.1, besides examining defendant No.2 as D.W.2. The
defendants got marked Ex.B.1 in support of their case.
9. Heard both sides, perused the record.
10. Issue Nos.1 to 4 : In view of issue Nos.1 to 4 are
interconnected to avoid repetition in appreciation of evidence above issues
are taken up together with discussion.
11. The undisputed case of both the parties is that Shobha
Estates which is a Real Estate partnership firm formed a lay out in survey
No.163 of Mandagiri village Sadapuram Grama Panchayath, Adoni Mandal
under approved lay out No.736/1984. The suit schedule property which is plot
No.5 with a specific measurements and boundaries shown in plaint schedule
is part of L.P.No.736/1984 formed by Shobha Estates. The defendant No.1 is
one of the partners of Shobha Estates who said to have executed sale deeds
for the same plot in favour of the plaintiff and in favour of defendant Nos.2
and 3 on different dates. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding Shobha
Estates forming lay out in L.P.nO.736/1984 in survey number 163 of
Mandagiri Sadapuram Grama Panchayath and plaint schedule property being
part and parcel of said lay out. Further, there is no dispute regarding identity
6. PJCJ,ADONI 6 O.S.No.261/2015
and location of suit schedule property. The dispute between the parties is
that the plaintiff is claiming suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A.1 said to
have been executed by defendant No.1 on 19.10.1991 whereas the
defendants have been claiming suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed
executed by defendant No.1 on 27.04.2009 marked as Ex.A.2. There is no
dispute regarding defendant No.1 being one of the partners of Shobha Esttes.
12. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff joined as
a member in Shobha Estates under membership No.401 in the scheme
formulated by firm and purchased suit schedule property under Ex.A.1 on
19.10.1991 executed by defendant No.1. Recently, the plaintiff for availing
loan obtained Encumbrance certificate and at that time he came to know that
Shobha Estates sold suit schedule property to the defendant Nos.1 and 2
jointly under Ex.A.2 on 27.04.2009 and again the defendant Nos.2 and 3 sold
the same to the defendant NO.4 on 18.03.2010. On that, the plaintiff got
issued a legal notice on 10.06.2015 which was received by defendant No.2
whereas the defendant Nos.1 and 3 failed to receive the same. Taking
advantage of the same the defendant No.4 executed a GPA on 26.08.2015 in
favour of defendant No.5 authorizing him to alienate suit schedule property
but in turn sold to defendant No.6 on 7.08.2017 i.e., during pendency of this
suit. The said transaction took place when this court prohibited alienation of
suit schedule property to 3rd
party. Therefore, the transaction entered by
defendant No.5 as agent of defendant No.4 is in valid and void. The
defendant No.1 without having any manner of right sold away suit schedule
property nearly 18 years after Ex.A.1. Therefore, the transactions entered
among defendant Nos.1 to 6 are in valid. Hence, this suit.
13. Per contra, the defendant Nos.2 to 4 in their written
statements they categorically pleaded that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are
members of Shobha Estates and under partnership number 383 and paid all
7. PJCJ,ADONI 7 O.S.No.261/2015
installments and on that the defendant No.1 executed Ex.A.2 on 27.04.2009
and delivered possession of the property. They purchase the property after
due verification of Encumbrance certificate and in the said Encumbrance
certificates Ex.A.1 transaction was not reflecting and thereafter he sold suit
property to the defendant No.4. Therefore, the defendant No.4 is bonafied
purchaser for value and this suit is liable to be dismissed.
14. In view of rival contentions of both the parties, it is manifest
that the defendant denied right and title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule
disputing correctness of Ex.A.1, therefore, The burden of proof is on the
plaintiff to prove his right and title over the suit schedule property besides
proving his possession over the same as on the date of filing of this suit.
15. Upon perusal of the schedule appended to the plaint it is
manifest that the plaintiff sought for relief of declaration with consequential
relief of permanent injunction in respect of vacant house plot bearing No.5 in
survey No.163, Mandagiri village of Sadapuram panchayath in lay out
No.736/84 with specific boundaries and measurements as shown in plaint
schedule. Since, both the parties are claiming suit schedule property there is
no dispute regarding identity and location of suit property. Further, it is
undisputed fact that the suit schedule property is a vacant site, therefore, the
principal possession follows title is applicable to gather the possession of
plaintiff over suit schedule property.
16. To prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as
P.W.1, besides examining one D.Ranga Reddy as P.W.2 and they reiterated
that the plaintiff is absolute owner of suit schedule property having
purchased the same under Ex.A.1 from defendant No.1 who subsequently to
create troubles to the plaintiff executed Ex.A.2 in favour of defendant Nos.2
8. PJCJ,ADONI 8 O.S.No.261/2015
and 3. Therefore, the documents executed among the defendants in respect
of suit property are not binding on the plaintiff.
17. To prove the case of defendants, D.Ws.4 and 2 are examined
as D.Ws.1 and 2 and they reiterated what all they pleaded in the plaint
stating that at the time of purchasing property they obtained Encumbrance
certificate and in those encumbrance certificates Ex.A.1 transaction was not
reflected. Therefore, they are bonafied purchasers and their rights are
protected.
18. It has already been referred to in the preceding paras that
Shobha Estates formed a lay out in survey number 163 of Mandagiri village
Sadapuram Grama Panchayath in L.P.No.736/1984. Admittedly, the plaintiff is
claiming suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed executed by one
B.V.Subba Rao who is one of the partners of Shobha Estates on 19.10.1991
under Ex.A.1. Upon perusal of the Ex.A.1 it makes clear that on 19.10.1991
one B.V.Subba Rao S/o. Bala Subbaiah who is one of the partners of Shobha
Estates sold suit schedule property to the plaintiff who is one of the member
in Shobha Estates with membership No.401 sold suit property to the plaintiff
and delivered the same to him. The learned advocate for defendant on this
would contend that the person who executed Ex.A.1 is different from the
person executed Ex.A.2. The plaintiff did not prove execution of Ex.A.1 as
such Ex.A.1 is in valid document. The contention of the learned advocate for
defendant is not sustainable on the simple reason that the plaintiff filed this
suit against his vendor the defendant No.1 also but remained exparte.
19. Admittedly, Ex.A.1 is a registered sale deed which provides
that the vendor had given a declaration before Sub-Registrar at the time of
registering the documents showing that he sold the suit property for valid
consideration. In the cross-examination of D.W.1, D.W.1 categorically
9. PJCJ,ADONI 9 O.S.No.261/2015
admitted that the defendant No.1 sold suit property to the plaintiff in the year
1991 under Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant NO.1
before filing this suit calling upon the defendants to cancel the sale deeds
obtained from defendant NO.1. Further, D.W.2 also admitted that the
defendant No.1 sold suit schedule property to the plaintiff in the year 1991.
Therefore, from the contentions of Ex.A.1 and the admissions given by
D.Ws.1 and 2 in their cross-examinations it is clear that on 19.10.1991 the
defendant No.1 who is one of the partners of Shobha Estate sold suit
schedule property to the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 and delivered possession of
the suit property to him.
20. It is further contention of defendants that the plaintiff is not
member in Shobha Estte and he has not paid any money in the scheme
formulated by Shobha Estates. As per the recitals of Ex.A.1 it makes clear
that the plaintiff was a member with membership No.401 in Shobha Estate
and after paying complete sale consideration of Rs.1,890/- sale deed was
executed in favour of plaintiff on given date and delivered possession of the
property to him. Therefore, by virtue of Ex.A.1 the defendant No.1 parted
with suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff.
21. Upon perusal of the Ex.A.2 it makes clear that the same
defendant No.1 who executed Ex.A.1 in the year 1991 again sold suit
schedule property on 27.04.2009 nearly 18 years after Ex.A.1 in favour of
defendant Nos.2 and 3 jointly. Admittedly, the defendant NO.1 parted with
suit schedule property and he divested with all his ownership rights over suit
schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, he cannot convey any
better title in suit schedule property. Thus, as defendant No.1 parted with suit
schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 the defendant Nos.2
and 3 cannot get any valid right and title under Ex.A.2. Again, the defendant
Nos.2 and 3 jointly sold away suit schedule property to the defendant No.4
10. PJCJ,ADONI 10 O.S.No.261/2015
under Ex.A.3 on 18.03.2010. Since, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 did get any
title under Ex.A.2 they cannot convey any title or ownership over suit
schedule to defendant No.4 under Ex.A.3.
22. It appears that in the year 2015 the plaintiff on 14.05.2015
obtained Encumbrance certificate and at that time he came to know about
the transactions under Exs.A.2 and A.3. Immediately he got issued a legal
notice to the defendant Nos.1 to 4 calling upon them to cancel Exs.A.2 and
A.3. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 evaded to receive notice and the defendant
No.2 received the same but did not come forward to get the sale deeds
canceled. In stead of canceling the sale deeds, on 26.08.2015 he executed
GPA in favour of defendant No.5 authorizing him to alienate suit schedule
property. It came on record that subsequently during pendency of this suit
the defendant No.5 sold suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.6
under a registered sale deed dated 7.08.2017 bearing document
No.5958/2017. Therefore, all the transactions subsequent to Ex.A.1 entered
by defendant NO.1 with others and the other defendant in respect of suit
schedule property are in valid since the defendant No.1 had already divested
his ownership and possession over suit schedule property in favour of the
plaintiff.
23. Further, it is relevant to mention here that as per orders in
I.A.No.1452/2015 dated 14.06.2016 this court passed temporary injunction
restraining the defendant NO.4 from alienating petition schedule property till
disposal of the suit. While the said orders are in force the agent of defendant
No.4 i.e., defendant NO.5 sold suit schedule property in favour of defendant
NO.6 under registered sale deed dated 7.08.2017 bearing document
No.5958/2017. Since, the sale transaction entered by agent of defendant
no.4 was entered while orders of this court prohibition of alienation are
substituting the sale deed executing by defendant NO.5 as agent of
11. PJCJ,ADONI 11 O.S.No.261/2015
defendant No.4 is not valid and the same is void document. The sale
Meeseva copy of sale deed is marked as Ex.A.10. Therefore, the sale
transaction entered by agent of defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.6 is
in valid and void document it cannot confer any right and title in possession
over suit schedule property either in favour of defendant No.5 or in favour of
defendant No.6.
24. D.Ws.1 and 2 in their cross-examination they categorically
admitted that the defendant No.1 sold suit schedule property to the plaintiff
in the year 1991 itself under Ex.A.1. Further, all subsequent sale transactions
took place after plaintiff gave legal notice on 10.06.2015 it appears that the
defendant No.1 only to get wrongful gain knowing fully well that he has no
right and title of the suit schedule property to cheat the plaintiff executed
Ex.A.2 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Since, the defendant No.1 had
already divested with ownership over suit schedule property he cannot
convey any title, ownership or possession over the suit schedule property in
favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 under Ex.A.2 and defendant Nos.2 and 3
cannot convey any better title to defendant No.4 under Ex.A.3. Therefore,
Exs.A.2 and A.3 are not valid and they are not binding on the plaintiff.
25. It is the specific contention of the defendants, this suit is
barred by limitation it is relevant to mention here that as per the case of
plaintiff on 14.05.2015 he obtained encumbrance certificate for availing loan
for construction of a house and at that time he came to know about Ex.A.2
and A.3 sale transaction and that he issued a legal notice to defendant No.1
to 4 calling upon them to get the sale deeds canceled. Therefore, it appears
that further as per the evidence of P.W.1 it is clear that the plaintiff is residing
at Vidya Nagar, Mantralayam Mandal. Therefore, he may not have knowledge
about Exs.A.2 and A.3 transactions. Since, the plaintiff categorically proved
that after obtaining Ex.A.4 Encumbrance certificate on 14.05.2015 he came
12. PJCJ,ADONI 12 O.S.No.261/2015
to know about Exs.A.2 and A.3 it cannot be held that this suit is not within
limitation. Since, the plaintiff filed this suit immediately after closing the
invalid transactions entered by defendant No.1 this suit is within limitation.
Therefore, the contention of the defendant is that this suit is barred by
limitation is devoid of merits.
26. Coming to the possession of the plaintiff over suit schedule
property is concerned admittedly the suit schedule property is vacant site
and the plaintiff by virtue of Ex.A.1 got absolute right and title over suit
schedule property. Since, the plaintiff proved his right and title over the suit
schedule property principal possession follows title gets attracted to the case
on hand as such the plaintiff proved his right and title besides possession
over suit schedule property on the date of filing of this suit. The evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 2 further established that there is imminent threat of
dispossession in the hands of defendants as such the plaintiff is entitled for
permanent injunction.
27. Thus, in view of the afore said discussion, this court is of
opinion that the plaintiff proved his right, title over suit schedule property
besides proving that the sale deeds entered by defendant Nos.1 to 6 in
respect of suit schedule property are in valid and they are not binding on the
plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff proved his possession over the suit schedule he
is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, issue Nos. 1 to
3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
28. ISSUE No.5 :- In view of issue Nos.1 to 4 are answered
infavour of the plaintiff this suit is decreed with costs.
In the result, this suit is decreed with costs declaring the
right, title ownership of the plaintiff over suit schedule property and
13. PJCJ,ADONI 13 O.S.No.261/2015
further declaring that the registered sale deed executed by
defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 dated 27.04.2009
bearing document No.2304/2009, registered sale deed executed by
defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.4 dated 18.03.2010
bearing document No.1638/2010, GPA executed by defendant No.4
in favour of the defendant No.5 dated 26.08.2015 and registered
sale deed executed by defendant No.5 as agent of defendant No.4
on 7.08.2017 bearing document No.5958/2017 in favour of
defendant No.6 are in valid and not binding on the plaintiff. Further,
the defendants are restrained from interfering with possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property by means of
permanent injunction.
Dictated to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the
open court on this the 18th
day of June, 2019.
Prl. Junior Civil Judge,
Adoni.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For Plaintiff: For Defendants:
P.W.1 : S.M.Lakshmi Reddy D.W.1 : G.Brhamananda Reddy
P.W.2 : D.Ranga Reddy D.W.2 : K.Eranna
Exhibits marked
For Plaintiff :
Ex.A.1 : Original registered sale deed dated 19.10.1991.
Ex.A.2 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.27.04.2009.
Ex.A.3 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.18.03.2010.
Ex.A.4 : Encumbrance certificate dt.14.05.2015.
Ex.A.5 : Office copy of legal notice dt.10.06.2015.
Ex.A.6 : Postal receipts 4 in number.
Ex.A.7 : Unserved postal cover of defendant No.1.
Ex.A.8 : Unserved postal cover of defendant No.3.
Ex.A.9 : Mee Seva Copy of GPA Dt.26.08.2015.
14. PJCJ,ADONI 14 O.S.No.261/2015
Ex.A.10: Mee Seva copy of sale deed dt.7.08.2017.
For Defendants:
Ex.B.1 : Mee Seva copy of sale deed dt.18.03.2010.
PJCJ,Adoni.
18. PJCJ,ADONI 18 O.S.No.261/2015
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI.
Tuesday, this the 18th
day of June, 2019
Present: - Sri. T. Kesava,
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.
O.S.N0.261/2015
S.M.Lakshmi Reddy
S/o. Sheshi Reddy, Hindu,
aged about 58 years, Teacher,
R/o. Vidya Nagar Vil, Mantralayam Mandal. ….Plaintiff
Vs
1. B.V.Subba Rao
S/o. Bal Subbaiah, Hindu,
aged about 68 years,
H.NO. 49-1-50 C-Camp, Kurnool.
2. K.Eranna
S/o. K.Narasanna, Hindu,
aged about 46 years,
H.No.21-515/251, Ambedkar Nagar,
Adoni.
3.K.Nagarani
W/o. K.Eranna, Hindu,
aged about 41 years,
H.No. 21-515/251, Ambedkar Nagar,
Adoni.
4.G.Bramhananda Reddy
S/o. G.Linga Reddy, Hindu,
aged about 37 years,
H.No.4-343/17, S.B.I. 3rd
colony,
Adoni.
5.B.Govardhan Reddy
S/o. B.Hanumantha Reddy, Hindu,
aged bout 37 years,
H.No.20/207 venkannabavi Street,
Adoni.
6.G.Aneel
S/o. G.Venkatesulu,
aged about 35 years,
H.No.11-105,
Anjineya Devasatanam street,
Basappabavi Street,
Bellary town. … Defendants
(The defendant Nos.5 and 6 are added as per the orders in
I.A.NO.1376/2017 dt.22.02.2018).
19. PJCJ,ADONI 19 O.S.No.261/2015
This suit is filed for declaration of right and title of plaintiff, over
suit schedule property and to declare that the registered sale deeds executed
among defendant Nos.1 to 4 are not binding on the plaintiff and with
consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants their
men and agents from interfering with possession and enjoyment of plaintiff
over suit schedule property.
Plaint presented on 18.11.2015 and filed on 20.11.2015
Jurisdiction value of Rs.2,50,000/- and 3/4th of the market valid at
Rs.1,87,500/- and a Court fee of Rs.4,326/-is paid u/Sec.24 (b) of the A.P.C.F.
and Suit Valuation Act.
Cause of action for the suit arose on 19.10.1991 when the plaintiff
purchased the suit schedule property from the defendant NO.1 on 27.04.2009
when the defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed in favour of
defendant No.2 and 3, on 18.03.2010 when the defendant Nos.2 and 3
executed registered sale deed in favour of the defendant NO.3, on
14.05.2015 when the plaintiff obtained E.C. and on 10.06.2015 when the
plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant No.1 to 4 and when the
defendants trying to interfere the possession of the schedule property and
the schedule plot situated at Mandagiri village of Sadapuram gram
panchayath Adoni Mandal within the jurisdiction of this court.
This suit is coming on for final hearing before me in the presence
of Sri. M.Sreddhar Reddy and M.Satya Sri Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.
K.Venkata Swamy advocate for defendant Nos.2 and 3 and Sri. L.K.Jeevan
Singh Advocate for defendant No.4 and Defendant NOS.1,5,6 remained
exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth
order and decree :
1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed declaring
the right and title ownership of the plaintiff over suit schedule property.
2. that the registered sale deed executed by defendant
No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 dated 27.04.2009 bearing document
No.2304/2009 be and the same is hereby not valid and not binding on the
plaintiff.
3. that the registered sale deed executed by defendant
No.2 and 3 in favour of defendant NO.4 dated 18.03.2010 bearing document
No.1638/2010 be and the same is hereby not valid and not binding on the
plaintiff.
4. that the GPA executed by defendant No.4 in favour of
defendant No.5 dated 26.08.2015 be and the same is hereby not valid and
not binding on the plaintiff.
20. PJCJ,ADONI 20 O.S.No.261/2015
5. that the registered sale deed executed by defendant NO.5 as
agent of defendant No.4 on 07.08.2017 bearing document No.5958/2017 is
not valid and not binding on the plaintiff.
6. that the defendants be and are hereby restrained by means fo
permanent injunction from interfering with possession and enjoyment of
plaintiff over suit schedule property.
7. that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8078/-
towards their costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 18th
day
of June, 2019.
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ADONI.
MEMO OF COSTS
Plaintiff Defendants
Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps.
1. Stamps on plaint 4,326-00 (Nil not certified)
2. Stamps on vakalat 2-00
3. Advocate fee 3,000-00
4. Process 150-00
5. Publication charges 500-00
4. Writing charges 50-00
6. Typing charges 50-00
-------------
Rs. 8078-00
--------------
SCHEDULE
All that peace of suit schedule property is residential plot bearing plot
No.5 situated in survey number 163 paiki of Mandagiri villag of Sadapuram
Gram Panchayath approved lay out No.736/84 file No.17866/84 D5 Ref
No.26/84 within the registration District of Kurnool and Sub-Registration
District of Adoni and within limits of the followign boundaries:
Boundaries : East : 33 feet Road
West : Plot No.2.
North : Plot No.6.
South : Plot No.4
Measurements : East to West : 50 feet, North to South : 45 feet
Total Extent 250 Sq. Yards.
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ADONI.