G.L.N. Prasad
15 December 2017 at 13:13
Please help me in providing the original link to following original judgment:
"An observation or even a finding that the defendant has not proved his title in a suit schedule property does not operate as resjudicata
ILR 1998 (3) KAR 2005
G.L.N. Prasad
24 November 2012 at 00:43
Kindly guide.
a. A collusive partition suit was filed by playing fraud with forged documents and parties obtained preliminary decree with conditions of adding necessary party in Nov,07 when the property was on lease with a PSU and in their possession
b. On coming to know of the fraud, real owner a lonely senior citizen has issued notices in Mar,08 and filed suit on 1-5-08.
c. On coming to know of the suit, defendants entered into compromise petition suppressing facts of notices and suit filed on 6th May, 08
d. On 6th Jun, 08 Status quo order was obtained .
e. The copy of status quo order was also sent to Sub-registrar immediately.
f. The defendants got the property registered with Registrar in Jan, 09
g. Is there any irregularity committed by co-sharers who were defendants.
h. Though as per lease agreement the possession is being with lessee a PSU, it was claimed that they are in physical possession without entering into lease and the real owner’s son entered into lease with PSU.
i. When the matter is pending before HC, defendants sold away the property at a throw away price to influential persons stating that it was a vacant site there are no legal cases filed or litigation pending and that they are in physical possession, though lessee is still occupying property with all his building and machinery. The proposed buyer was issued notices not to acquire the property and relevant court orders were furnished to him with facts of lease as exhibits but he still purchased the property.
j. Is it essential to include the purchasers of property also as defendants and whether disposing property which is under lease and with occupations of lessee can be registered as vacant site and can given possession legally.
k. What is the legal stand and remedy.
G.L.N. Prasad
27 September 2012 at 19:16
Please furnish the relevant site on which one can find model forms for appeal before Supreme Court against orders of NCDRC on Consumer cases.
G.L.N. Prasad
17 June 2012 at 22:43
Can any expert enlighten me as to a Hindu Girl, converting to islam, marrying a muslim is entitled to her share in her intestate father;s property.
G.L.N. Prasad
30 September 2011 at 01:51
A certain property has been leased through regd document to a PSU since 1950 till date. Owner has been collecting lease rent from PSU through dealer after giving authorisation letter. After expiry of owner, it has come to light that PSU dealer has fabricated documents and filed specific performance suit, obtained ex partee decree and got property registered in 1971. Even in 1980 owner has executed fresh lease and given authorisation letter to dealer who claims to have purchased property two decades back. The fact is that as rent is being received through dealer who is a relative, other family members had never suspected foul play. When owner's mother filed partition suit, the suit was dismissed with reason that she has to pay advaleoum stamp duty as she had lost possession decades back and hon judge has not considered that property was under lease and fraud evidences presented.
How possession can be established.
Member Strength 9,47,825 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Reesjudicata
The following is HC judgment in a partition case seeking her share of property by plaintiff with pleading that fraudulent and collusive alienation by her undivided son in earlier specific performance suit expartee decree is not binding on her share of property. The appeal was against dismissal by trial court that she has lost possession long back and she has to file declaration suit and must pay Adv.Court fee. The contention at the trial court is that alienation by her son can not bind her share of property and hence a general partition suit was filed.
Therefore we hold that the suit for partition is not maintainable without seeking a declaration that the decree and judgment in the suit for specific performance in OS No.54/68 are not valid and not binding on the plaintiff
Please guide as to whether
a)a finality was reached on partition suit.
b)Whether resjudicata applies now for filing of declaration suit praying for setting aside expartee decree as directed by HC.
c)The commencement date of limitation when a document concealed by the parties was discovered in the record of Public authority on 23-3-13 was filed before HC,. This document was admitted as concealed, contents were discussed in main judgment, but contents were not admitted stating that officials of public authority were not examined during trial.
d)Whether court fee has to be paid on all reliefs separately on prayers for 1)setting aside expartee decree,2) cancellation of sale deed, and on other 3)individual partitions in purchaser family members when the pleading is fraud on court by their father plaintiff in specific performance suit and misrepresentation and when such partition was done by plaintiff's members to defeat the rights of plaintiff during litigation and during status quo order by Court.