M.RAJA.
20 September 2011 at 14:14
sir,
my father brought one house in tamilnadu housing board via government loan at a cost of rs 145700. he was expired while in service.so the goverment has cancel the remaining amount,and relase the mortage deed to my mother.to buy sale deed from housing board the housing board ask my mother to pay a sum of rs300000/to release the sale deed.the housing board calculate todays land value of rs300000/what i have to do sir,whether i want to move to the court?to cancel the todays land value.plz give me proper direction via dineshrajaips@gmailcom
Anonymous
20 September 2011 at 10:16
3 brothers are in joint possession of the house property but one brother obtained injunction against other brother not to interfere in to the possession. can u please give me a citation/judgement against the order.
Anonymous
20 September 2011 at 09:21
A claim for refund the due amount in a matter of agreement for sale can be make through civil suit/procedure in a court or through FIR in a police station. Can both procedures be followed parallely? If I lodge a FIR then I think case would be depend on police investigation. The opposition is influential and it is very possible that he will influence the police and make pressure on him for improper investigation and weaken the case. If this happens then what I can do? Will any space/roll remain for me to present my position and arguement and contend the wrong version of police or case will be totally depend on police theory.
x
20 September 2011 at 01:47
In order to speed up a trial where the plaintiff's are doing their best to delay, it has been advised to approach the High Court under Article 227 of Indian Constitution for a time bound trial.
I would like to know from you experts the following:
1. Is it efficacious?
2. Are there any traps, one should keep in mind?
3. For a successful petition how should the petition be approached.
Any other pointers will be highly appreciated.
Anonymous
19 September 2011 at 23:14
we occupants were residing in survey no 537/1&2 since 50 yrs that land given by owner for trees n vegetables. .In 1976 TP scheme implemented and put the land under reservation and owner had been given another plots whereas no special notice ( Bombay TP act) had been given to occupants till date. TP officer finalized the scheme and vested the land to municipality as a final award to construct town centre. Till 1994 municipality dint try to vacant the land and started digging work for compound wall and civil suit 39/94 filed by occupants against municipal at una. and that court ordered that without due process of law occupants can not be removed .and on the basis of that decree, occupants through power of attorney holder, filed an application to gujarat govt.to remove the land from TP scheme and allot them as reasonable rate. Then the govt. ask for the documents from municipality via collector and asked for the any decision taken from municipality regarding the land. and president written latter to govt to sale the land in market rate and to use for the same purpose for which it was reserved in TP (town centre).collector heard the municipal chief officer and its lawyer and proposed to govt. to take appropriate decision and On jun 1996 govt.after scrutiny the docs and personal hearing municipal president, permitted to sale the land under gujarat municipal act 1963 sec.65/2.with two condition one is that occupants would have to purchase on market rate and other is they would use the land for the land for the purpose for which it was reserved in TP(town centre) and sale deed executed. then collector stayed the matter (as there was no municipal resolution and land sold throw away price -price didnt fixed by appropriate authority (but chief officer had taken bond from occupants to pay the price difference ) Against the stay of collector ,power of attorney holder filed revision application to govt. against the collector order and simultaneously SCA filed in high court as a public interest. and court didnt entertained the matter as the revision was pending before govt. and suit filed by municipality for cancel the sale deed was pending at veraval court .there after, revision was partially allowed by govt. in 2000 and ordered to re determine the market value by appropriate authority and canceled the stay by collector .then again case filed in high court and in oct 2010 high court rejected occupancy suit 39/94 (as land was under TP and only chief officer of municipality was respondent)and and canceled the govt. order (as TP land can not be sell under gujarat municipal act 1963 -sec 65/2.and govt has no right to order to municipal to sell the land.only variation can be done according to Bombay TP sec.71) there after supreme court didnt accept the case.on the basis of the order of high court and supreme , occupants had been removed from the land.
(I would like to say that High court didnt look after the documents that can prove the occupancy and according to one supreme court judgement..3 clear day notice (under Bombay TP act sec.21) is mandatory to interested persons. and they opined the non compliances thereof vitiates the validity of final scheme. Hence the TP scheme on that land i think still incomplete)
should v try again in supreme court .can v win the case.....???
which lawyers are best in supreme court for this case ?
Anonymous
19 September 2011 at 22:06
Dear Experts Please answer my Query.
An Ejection Suit filed only for possession of immovable property (not for Title) with a fake "cause of action".
Defendant denies plaintiff title to the property,and says that he in possession of property for last 15 years.
Plaintiff mention fake (date of dispossession) "cause of action" to get a "summary remedy" under section 6 of specific relief act.
If Plaintiff and defended not related as owner and tenant,
1) Who has the burden of proof of dispossession ?
2) Mere challenging the title is enough for defendant to dismiss the suit since title not prayed by plaintiff?
3) Is the defendant have to prove that he was in possession for last 6 month?
Thanks in Advance.
Anonymous
19 September 2011 at 20:50
Suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession pending in civil judge senior devision in the meantime party in possession applied for license to establish weighing machine before deputy commissioner on the suit land.Plaintiff brought another suit for permanent injunction in the court of civil judge junior devision making party to deputy commissioner and defendant and prayed to restrain them in issuing license.Whether suit for injunction will proceed ? If possible kindly cite an authority on the point since order has to be pronounced on the matter.
Anonymous
19 September 2011 at 20:22
An oral agreement took place for sale and a part of consideration amount paid to seller. After 3 months seller refused to sell and ask for time to refund. In two and half years he refunded only 30% of total paid amount in instalments. Now seller is refusing to refund due amount and almost denying any oral agreement for sale. The amount was paid by bearer cheque and refunded instalments are writen on a plain paper with signature of both parties. My question is -
1- What is the limitation period for claim to refund?
2- Is the limitation period diferent in civil and criminal procedure.
3- Which date would be reference date for counting the limitation period?
[a] The date on which amount was paid to seller.
[b] The date on which last instalment was refunded to purchaser.
[c] The date on which seller denied to refund due amount.
Anonymous
19 September 2011 at 18:06
i file a partition suit, the court ragistrar put the suit in the ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT. the total property is 35lakh, my part is 7 lakh. the defendent now, give application in court for dismiss the suit, for jurisdiction reason. he says that only principal senior civil judge has power for this suit value. what i do any supreme court authority to regarding that, ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE has a power for this type suit?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Written statement of r1 in mact case.
Hi All,
There is a MACT case in progress for road accident on me and I am R1 for the same. As per the last hearing court have asked me to file a written statement(R2 - insurance company have already filed the written statement).
As I have already relocated from the city it will be difficult for me to appear in the court to file written statement. I wanted to know if filing written statement is mandatory in case of MACT. What if R1 doesnt't file written statement(what impact it will have in the proceeding of the case).
If it is cumpulsory then how to file a written statement without appearing before the court.
Thanks in advance.