Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“An independent and efficient judiciary is the bedrock of any democracy. In India, the increasing complexity of legal disputes burgeoning caseloads and evolving dimensions of justice delivery have necessitated continuous judicial education.”
“Regarding immovable properties (other than agricultural lands paying land revenue) – such as buildings, plots etc. or movable properties — where the Court can conveniently and without further enquiry make the division without the assistance of any Commissioner, or where parties agree upon the manner of division, the Court will pass a composite decree comprising the preliminary decree declaring the rights of several parties and also a final decree dividing the suit properties by metes and bounds, in one judgment.”
The contention of appellants that they and their predecessor acquired the right of adverse possession over the suit land was not accepted by the Court in the absence of cogent evidence on record.
The Calcutta High Court highlighted the importance of adhering to the legislative intent behind Rule 6A of Order 8 CPC to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure speedy trial.
The Court said that allegations of fraud require special pleadings in terms of Order VI, Rule 4 CPC, 1908.
Senior Citizens have every right to protect themselves and in case of ill-treatment and abuse by their children/ legal heirs, can approach the Maintenance Tribunal for their eviction from their property of any kind, which includes both Ancestral as well as Self Acquired Property.
Madras High Court: G. Jayachandran, J., the instant suit was filed with regard to the relief of partition and permanent injunction from
Madras High Court: G. Jaya Chandran, J., expressed that the individual property can blend with the ancestral property or with the joint
Bombay High Court: R.D. Dhanuka, J., held that relinquishment of properties held by the legal heirs of a person whose properties were
Patna High Court: Mohit Kumar Shah, J., while addressing the instant partition suit decided on the question as to whether: transferee pendente
Delhi High Court: Pratibha M. Singh, J. allowed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendant in the subject
Calcutta High Court: Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioner, Dr Kashninath Ghosh Hazra, under Article 226 of
Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana and M.M. Shantanagoudar, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed against the judgment of a Division
Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar, J., dismissed a writ petition filed against the order of the trial
Delhi High Court: Disposing of an appeal filed in 1985 against a judgment and decree in a partition suit, the Court observed