satish
07 February 2010 at 10:45
One company assigned his debts to other company during the pendancy of the suits..Then can first company can apply to court for substitute it's name as plaintiff the name of assignee company...
Anjali Arya
07 February 2010 at 10:21
I (Plaintiff) filed a Suit for Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant to vacate the suit property and to handover vacant & peaceful possesion thereofand not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff.
Even though all the issues were decided in my favour but Suit was dismissed by Trial Court stating that Suit for Possession ought to be filed.
Aggreived by this Judgement, I filed First Appeal. The ADJ allowed the Appeal stating following :
1. It is strange to see that Defendant is a licensee and in the possession of Property.
2. Defendant is a licencee having occupation of the property and does not have the possession. The Lawful owner (Plaintiff) is deemed to be in possession.
3. In Sant Lal Jain vs Avtar Singh, where similar situation arose, Hon'ble Supreme Court decided not to throw away the case of the plaintiff on this groung to avoid multiplicity of Suits.
Now My Question is that
1. What is this Decree ?
2. What should I do to take the Actual Possesstion of the premises ?
Member (Account Deleted)
07 February 2010 at 09:50
HI MY EXPERTS FRIENDS AND RESPECTED SENIOR EXPERTS,
HERE IN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT THE FOLLOWING QUESTION HAS BEEN REFFERED FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE LARGER BENCH-
"Whether requirement of section 18 of Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institution Act,1989 attracted even in case of un-aided recognised educational institutions?"
kindly answer.
Soma
06 February 2010 at 22:44
My client are the legal heirs of deceased land owner of an apartment.
Bank had taken One of the top floor flat under SARFAESI Act and land owners raised no objection as they thought that it was mortgaged to Bank.
Subsequently they found that the same flat was not sold to any body by their father, never, and it was not mortgaged to any bank. Actually the ground floor flat is mortgaged to that bank by its owner. Which was sold. But the bank has taken possession of wrong flat.
Now the bank has published sale notice in news paper but no notice fixed on the property. Notice published on 06.01.2010.
Whether sale proceeding can be stopped?
Under what provision of law?
What is the limitation period?
M Ravinder Babu Advocate Parka
06 February 2010 at 21:31
DECEASED DIED WHILE IN SERVICE,HAVING TWO WIFES.
First unemployed,having major daughter.
Second WIFE working as conductor had a son now(after death of deceased)became major.
Though providing job in harness to the diseased employ family as matter of right the department is willing to provide job.
No understanding between wives of deceased like wise the children.
1st wife daughter completed 10+2 and appearing degree final in distance education.
Second wife son now in 10+2 final.
both are willing for jobs.
Who are the fit persons to get job as per law.
Anonymous
06 February 2010 at 20:59
Respected Experts,
I need comment on the following
That Plantiff and respondents have file their pleadings which have now been completed.Please suggest tips on final argument
Whether I should start the case with briefing on the facts before the magistrate/judge
such as facts of the case
reply made by the respondents
Issues arises
Arguments with citaions
OR
directly over Issues with Arguments with citations only
Please provide information in detail
raj
06 February 2010 at 17:00
dear learned counsel!
An EP is pending against me in the family court.In 2005,my ex wife and me made certain terms of compromise regarding our female child through lok adalat award,according to which my ex wife act as guardian to my child.But later due to change of circumstances,my child is living with me.After 4 years my ex wife filed an EP in the family court.I too filed a GWOP in the same court for change of guardian ship and it was accepted by the court.Can i get stay orders in EP in the family court.Please advice.
shantanu dekhane
06 February 2010 at 14:51
How to prove any document in the court of law.
Mohamed Ali
06 February 2010 at 14:29
A Sunni hanafi family partition suit was decreed in 1960 by the Additional court,
our grandmother who is 3rd plaintiff in suit was entitled for 1/17th share as per decree,
She died 26 years after decree in 1986.
She had 1 predeceased son with 3 children’s and 2 daughters’s who survived her.
While filing Final decree petition in the year 1989, the 3 children’s of predeceased son were wrongly brought on record as Legal heir’s of 3rd plaintiff along with her two daughters for which the two daughters did not object.
Now in the year 2008 daughters have filed an Interlocutory Application under Section 151 of CPC, in front of the trial court to strike out from record those 3 children’s of predeceased son who are not entitle for any share in 3rd plaintiffs share as per Mohameddan law. It is well Known that as per Mohameddan law Orphaned grandchildren are not entitle for any share in grandparent’s property.
Orders on our IA: The Judge has dismissed our IA saying, Whether Orphaned grandchildren will get any share or not will not be determined in this pending final decree proceedings, Final decree proceedings is only to allot the share as per decree. Morever we have not objected at the time when the LR application of this orphaned grandchildren was filed in 1989.
We filed writ petition in high court..
Writ petition in High court: The high court also has held same view as trial court and dismissed our Writ petition, saying if these grandchildren are not deleted from the record in this pending final decree proceedings it will not affect the other co-plaintiffs as just the names orphaned grandchildren as LR’s of 3rd plaintiff on record will not create any right to them. If they are not entitle for share as per Mohameddan law they will not get the share. But how ? Since they are on record right will go to them ?
Final decree proceedings is still pending..
My Question:
1) Can we file one more Interlocutary application in the trial court where Final decree proceedings is still pending, that these oprphaned grandchildren are not legal heirs as per Mohameddan law hence Orginal 3rd plaintiff’s share must be allotted to only the two daughters not to these orphaned grand children at the time of drawing of final decree.
2)Can we file a separate Orginal Suite parallel to this pending final decree proceedings based on Preliminary decree that the 1/17th share of Orginal 3rd plaintiff as per decree must be allotted only two daughters of 3rd plaintiff not to these Orphaned grandchildren. And later we can club this result of original suite with the final decree proceedings. As here the problem is limited scope of final decree proceedings
3)please suggest a way so that these Oprhaned grandchildren must not get any share in this pending final decree proceedings.
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
proclaimed offender
civl court holding that a proclaimed offender has no legal and valuable right before the court of law. Such finding whether justified?
A proclaimed offender after his declaration as PO is arrayed as defendant in a civil suit and is proceeded exparte. He files application under Order 9 Rule 13 through his mother as his attorney. Application rejected with the above finding. Whether justified? Isnt it miscarriage of justice and fun of civil procedure?