Harshala
03 October 2012 at 13:04
is legal heirship certificate necessary for transmission of movable property? if yes what is the procedure to apply for the same? and for a movable property do i need to apply a succession certificate if yes what is the maximum court fees for the same?
Dr Sangh Mittra
03 October 2012 at 10:11
I was suspended and charge sheeted in 2003 under the CCS (CCA) RULES 1965.Before the Inquiry was to commence I approached the High Court. The Court asked why rule nisi be not issued and stayed the Inquiry.
I was Director before my suspension. One of the Deputy Directors who had not made to the post to which I had been selected in 1998, and he also having been a Departmental candidate was the direct beneficiary of my suspension and charge sheeting. He was given the additional charge of the post of Secretary a post step above that of Director which the Director as per regulations was the ex officio Secretary. He was also a listed witness in the charge sheet issued to me and which was quashed by Court on grounds of mala fides .
In 2007 the High Court quashed my charge sheet and order of suspension for reasons of mala fides and gave liberty to the Governing Body of the organisation headed by the new Chairman of my organisation to objectively examine and issue fresh charge sheet if so advised.
Since the above said Deputy Director was still holding the additional charge of the post of Secretary on the day of the quashing of suspension and charge sheet he issued Order stating it was with approval of the Chairman that I would mark daily attendance with the PS to the Chairman, report to him and route all correspondence through him.
He , I repeat , issued letters to me to comment upon the allegations of 1997-2003 and only he proposed to hold an Inquiry against me under Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules 1965 albeit "with the approval of the competent authority". "With the approval of the competent authority the undersigned proposes to hold an Inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules 1965 against ..." as stated by him especially after there were orders from the Govt to replace him from holding the additional charge and the additional charge was directed to be given to the senior most- which I happened to be. But the second in array after the quashing of charge sheet chairman who was colluding with him wrote the charge sheet was contemplated against me
The said Deputy Director had contested by filing signed Affidavits against in my Petition from 2003- till my charge sheet had been quashed and who had been a witness in the quashed by Court charge sheet, now issued a charge sheet signed by him while holding on the additional charge of the office of Member Secretary, reproducing verbatin 10 out of the same fifteen charges stating five have been dropped on the recommendations of the Fact finding officer deputed by the Chairman.
A retired High Court Judge carried out the Inquiry- ex parte- on the day of my sickness for which there is records of the sanction of Leave. I had appeared only once and later due to the mail meant for me being controlled , reaching me late and I falling sick and determined not to go to the residence of the retired Judge who was paid about Five Lakhs. I was held guilty. Even the complainant who had alleged that I had demanded bribe was not examined by the I.O. In the final analysis I was Compulsorily retired. Since the Appellate Authority only had been ordered by the Court to objectively examine the allegations of misconduct of 1997-2003 which the Court itself had had found to be "retaliatory", "raked" up and "stale" and issued to me fresh charge sheet through its chairman if so advised and since the Order of Compulsory Authority stated that the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority had considered my representations through out in the process of Disciplinary proceedings I submitted the appeal half heatedly through ordinary post which was never acknowledged nor i followed it up realizing the situation .
I have been in the High Court ever since my Compulsory retirement in 2010 stating that the officer holding the current duties of a cannot exercise the statutory powers and as such the charge sheet issued to me was bad in Law. Further the Chairman (who had approved my compulsory retirement) had already finished his in rules provided Fixed Term of Five years in January 2010 had been asked by the Govt to to continue till the appointment of a regular incumbent. So he was also a stop gap chairman. After he had been used to do away with me the Govt appointed a new Chairman.
The pleadings are not becoming complete so far as some respondents first refused to accept court notice , when pointed by me to the Court the Advocate representing the Organisation accepted Notice on the behalf of some. Some Respondents have, probably, managed with the Court messenger and he wrote address incomplete where as it is fully complete. Court says issue fresh notice under complete address. I am becoming disheartened.
How long will it continue? Do I have a chance to redeem. I have been dis-honoured too much and now the honour or no honour does not matter to me . All I am concerned is the undeserved stigma which haunts me and comes in the way of my future employment despite my brilliant academic qualifications. Please advise if the said Deputy Director, who had himself been a witness in the quashed by Court charge sheet , and while holding additional charge competent to propose an Inquiry . Was it all Legal? Should I withdraw the Petition and see what happens again as the Advocates do not want the case to be over and three appear on each hearing getting Rs 21,000/ each
shirish
03 October 2012 at 09:43
Dear Sir,
My Mother had given her house on rent for 3 years and she wanted to stay in her house after three years.Tenant refused to vacate wuth the pretext that he had agreement with me for sale of house on a plane paper which he and his son being witness and alleging that I signed the agreement and sent the paper through my wife.I neither own nor the only heir to the house.Distric court gave a decree to vaccate the premise as my mother is old and widow.The Tenant has filed a first appeal in high court.There is no rent control act in our hometown.The District Judge had clearly pointed out the signature doesnot match my signature and the tenant couldnot produce any evidence to proove he has paid any advance.Even if we get a favorable hearing from High court can he move the Supreme court to delay vaccating the house.
thanking you
NAGARAJ
03 October 2012 at 07:50
Hi Sir
My father was having two properties one built house in my fathers name,one site which was made in my mothers name and later given to my brother as a gift deed. actualy we are 3 childrens. and now my father is no more and he has left a will writing one of my brother who has taken the site as gift , do not have any share in the built house property. but the will which he has made just written in the plain paper with his signature. but my brother is demanding the equal share from the built house. and my mother is saying that he dont have any rights to take share from the built property and if he dont agree i will file a case against him. and my brother is not ready to give any share fromm the gifted site.
sir can you please explain me what will be the court decesion in this case. can we go against him asking for justice. if we give him equal share in built house. he weill get 60% of the share and other 2 brothers will get remaing 40%
please tell me what can we do to get the equal share from my parents property
can my mother take back the property given to my brother as gift
monjula sooresh
02 October 2012 at 21:07
Few relevant facts - With the right of survivorship on the death of one of the 2 joint owners the partition of the undivided family house property (UFHP) had been extinguished. After the death of the joint owner, after the expiry of the period prescribed by the law of limitation, taking advantage of the other (my) joint owner’s absence from India ( NRI status) a greedy land grabber(glg) came into the Court claiming in her petition that she had “purchased” the half share of the deceased owner before his death. Gig therefore claimed entitlement for impletion in said partition suit which was extinguished and no longer pending.
The entire commercially valuable UFHP has been in my exclusive, open, legal, peaceful, uninterrupted, settled possession, enjoyment and control for over 35 years todate and I have been paying all the government house taxes, carrying out all repair and maintenance work, maintaining an medical care of aged parents residing in the UFHP….
Glg failed to submit any sale deed conveying the claimed half share of the deceased joint owner thereby conclusively proving the deception practiced by her.
In support of her petition claiming entitlement to impletion in place of the deceased joint owner and for half portion of my UFHP to be carved out as a separate takhta by a Pleader Commissioner and delivered to her, gig submitted a Xerox copy of a document fraudulently misrepresented as a registered sale deed (sd). Prima facie the purported sale deed is fabricated, forged, false and fraudulent because it dishonestly claims that the Preliminary decree (PD) passed in said extinguished Partition suit had decreed final partition by metes an bounds and the purported SD seeks to transfer by ‘absolute sale’ the exclusive parcel of UFHP partitioned by metes an bounds.
One glance at the said Preliminary decree (PD) conclusively proves that the sale transaction relied upon by gig is dishonestly fraudulent, false concocted because the said pd reads that under ‘the state of affairs of unity of title and unity of possession’ the two joint owners each have equal half share.
The purported sale deed evidences a dishonestly fraudulent non-existent transaction fraud and consequently the same has not transferred ownership of any object whatsoever in fact an in law to the alleged Purchaser –glg. No transfer of any semblance of ownership or title has taken place “by virtue” of the purported sale deed because the object /subject matter of the sale deed does not exist legally or factually and is a nullity and the deceased alleged joint owner /vendor had no title to any exclusive parcel and has denied any such alleged transaction in judicial proceedings upto the day of his demise. In fact said deceased alleged vendor & his lawyer had no knowledge of transaction /sd alleged by glg. Both until his death have judicially admitted that the UFHP has not been divided or partitioned by metes and bounds at any time an there has never been at any point of time any remote semblance of physical separation of any portion of the property as per any shares.
The title deed executed by Mother (absolute owner in possession) in creating joint tenancy /ownership – doc. Relied upon in said Partition suit was suppressed.
Learned Sub Judge himself has found the said xerox sd inadmissible in evidence and refused to admit said Xerox copy of document in evidence or acknowledge that the same has been proved by judicial evidence. Said SD has NOT been marked with an exhibit number. The fact that no exhibit number, no admission, no endorsement as mandatory under Order 13 rule 4 CPC has been given to said Xerox document proves in legal terms that the said Xerox document has not become part of evidence in court records.
The Preliminary objection was raised by my lawyer reminding the Court that Glg’s case was barred by limitation and abatement.
The Order sheet reveals that the Court directed glg to file rejoinder to said preliminary objection and was proceeding on the issue of limitation and abatement on the next day scheduled for hearing. Instead on the next day scheduled for hearing the Learned Judge sprang a surprise by passing an order impleading gig in place of deceased joint owner and for carving out separate takhta by Pleader Commissioner and delivery of the same to glg.
No semblance of any adjudication was allowed. No rejoinder reg limitation & abatement was filed by glg confirming collusion. In fact to mislead me and prevent me from contesting on merit LJ decided to proceed on limitation & abatement 3 years after the preliminary objection was raised. Meanwhile behind my back, without notice to me Pleader Commissioner was appointed changed an in great haste without any visit to UFHP without any documents ( title documents, khasra khatiayian etc.) a prima facie dishonestly fraudulent report allotting the exclusive parcel falsely claimed in purported SD to glg
Thus Glg failed to discharge the initial burden of proof to even prima facie establish her case in view of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which reads as under:-
"Sec. 101. Burden of proof. Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
3 years after the Preliminary objection reg limitation & abatement was filed LJ passed 2n order rejecting my reminder that glg’s case was barred by limitation and abatement is automatic. Glg never prayed for condonation of delay or offered any reason and the abatement was never put aside. There has been complete silence on the issue of limitation.
The order sheet reveals that all my objections / petitions placing full particulars of the series of frauds practiced by glg, the fact that glg has no locus standi have been ignored. In fact 2nd order rejecting my petition on limitation an abatement actually militates against my numerous petitions giving full particulars of the fraud , objecting to Xerox copy an total unexplained absence of originals and states that I admitted glg’s claims ! The rejection of abatement was on the basis of a Patna HC ecision in 1956 which was overruled by the Fb of the samr Patna HC in 1962!!!
The statement made in my affidavits with respect to the series of frauds, forgery, no evidence, gig’s judicial admissions of systemic frauds practised … till today stands unrebutted.
I filed review petition under S44 evidence Act on fraud and collusion (Misc application arising out of Partition suit) an my substantive right to avoid orders obtained by fraud and collusion which has not yet been admitted in spite of my petitions setting out the grounds and compelling circumstances enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1 cpc and binding decisions of the Supreme Court.
Now after 8 years of suffering irretrievable losses by being forced to fight malicious persecution and abuse of process of court the new LJ has called upon glg to file rejoinders to my said affidavits. Evasive general denials to the effect that they are too decent to reply to my statements on judicially admitted systematic frauds practiced by gig over 8years. These under Supreme Court laws constitute admission once again.
If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it = Supreme Court of India,M/S Prestige Lights Ltd vs State Bank Of India on 20 August, 2007, CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3827 of 2007 arising out of Special leave petition (civil) no.9409 of 2005,PETITIONER: M/S PRESTIGE LIGHTS LTD v. RESPONDENT: STATE BANK OF INDIA, BENCH: C.K. THAKKER & ALTAMAS KABIR
Now if LJ in trial Court insists on rejecting my review petition and continuing with gigs fraudulent or malicious manipulation of the partition suit, - the wrongful act is the actual filing of the suit itself for improper and malicious reason – should I approach the High Court ? How ? filing IA? Should I proceed with my application to HC before the review petition is rejected? I intend to place before the LJ once again the Supreme Court laws which call for immediate non suiting of party practicing fraud
Sadanand B. Panchal
02 October 2012 at 17:33
Respected Experts,
I have filed a Civil suit for obtaining injunction order against Defendants from obstructing my right of way and also for declaration that the Defendants have no right whatsoever to obstruct my right of way. In my Plaint I initially referred that Defendant as owner of land. Subsequently after my ad-interim reliefs refused by the Hon’ble Court, I found that the Defendant is not the owner of the land in question and also obtained certified copy of the order of Hon’ble City Civil Court (Same Court) in the matter of one landlord V/s. the Defendant showing the Defendant was/is not the owner of the land. Now I am going to amend my Plaint by inserting words “Now I found that the Defendant is not the owner of the land and therefore has no right to continue any construction activity on my right of way.” and also inserting prayer “that this Hon’ble Court may declare that the Defendant being not the owner of the land has no right to obstruct Plaintiffs right of way”
Please explain me whether the above referred amendment will change the nature of the Suit or the Suit will become liable for dismissal?
If no, please explain me whether I will have to pay Court fee? Under what extent?
I am not claiming to be owner of the land and claiming to be co-owner of the room occupied by me.
Since I have filed the Suit in person, therefore I require this advice.
Regards,
Sadanand B. Panchal
ROJA shree
02 October 2012 at 17:27
Sir/Madam,
Pls let me know the registration fees and how much it costs exactly for the power of Attorney registration in Mumbai ?
ROJA shree
02 October 2012 at 15:57
Sir/Madam,
am residing in Coimbatore any my ancestral prperty is situaued in Trivandrum.One of my sister who resides in Mumbai wants to give me General power of Attorney for conducting property case in trivandrum
So do I need to go to Mumbai for getting registered the pwer document there?
pls mention the rules and fee of Maharashtra Govt...
4WhatIsRight
02 October 2012 at 14:37
is the court fee refundable in any of the following cases:-
1. when you win the suit
2.when the plaint is rejected
3.when there is an out of court settlement.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Deposit of title deeds
dear experts my clients property was sold in public auction by a nationalised bank in the month of may, as he could not remit the loan amount in time. As the sale certificate has been issued and the property has been put to possession by the bank to the auction purchaser my client requested the bank to release the excess proceeds after deducting the loan amount and other charges. It has been four months since he is trying to get this amount and he is not getting any positive reply from the circle office. It is to be noted that property has not yet been transferred in the name of the auction purchaser and the encumbrance certificate reflects the registration of sale certificate and apart from that one more entry in the E.C shows deposit of title deeds for 10 lacs. This finance facility has been extended by the same bank which conducted the auction. My query is whether the auction purchaser is entitled to get loan amount on the strength of the title deeds of the borrower? . My contention is auction purchaser should have been given loan based the sale certificate issued in his favour. Please guide me as to what really happened in this transaction. (The E.C was taken a week back)