Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2006 Page 3 of about 159 results (0.101 seconds)

Aug 24 2006 (SC)

Tulsi and ors. Vs. Chandrika Prasad and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-24-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC3359; 2007(1)ALD20(SC); 2006(4)AWC3644(SC); 2006(4)CTC766; [2007(1)JCR87(SC)]; JT2006(8)SC158; 2007(1)MhLj893; 2007(I)OLR(SC)196; 2006(8)SCALE515; (2006)8SCC322

s.b. sinha, j. 1. leave granted. 2. whether the deed dated 30.12.1968 constitutes a sale with condition of purchase or mortgage by way of conditional sale is the question which falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.7.2004 passed by the high court of jharkhand in f.a. no. 23 of 1991 (r) . 3. the basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. the property in question is a house property. it belonged to one jawala prasad sah, defendant no. 3 in the suit. on 30.12.1968, he transferred the northern part of the house property to one balmukund chaudhary by way of mortgage for a consideration of rs. 4,300/- repayable by 30.1.1971. he sold the entire property to the plaintiffs for a valuable consideration of rs. 14,000/-. it included the right to redeem the mortgage. the transaction in question was also carried out on the same date, i.e. 30.12.1968. the husband of the appellant no. 1 herein banshidhar singhania was a tenant in the said premises. the respondents filed a suit for a decree for redemption of the said mortgage as also a decree for mesne profit for the period 3.1.1972 till the recovery of possession of the mortgaged property. in the alternative, a prayer for a decree of specific performance was made. 4. it is not in dispute that prior to filing of the suit by several notices, the plaintiffs expressed their intention to redeem the mortgage. a personal tender of the entire mortgage amount was made which was refused. an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2006 (SC)

K.R. George Vs. Industrial Engineering Corporation and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-21-2006

Reported in : 2006(9)SCALE501; (2006)10SCC198

ar. lakshmanan, j.1. delay condoned.2. leave granted in both the special leave petitions.3. civil appeal no. 4226 of 2006 (@ s.l.p. (c) no. 3177 of 2005) was filed against the final order dated 12.3.2004 passed by the high court of kerala in r.p. no. 359 of 2003. civil appeal no. 4227 of 2006 (@ s.lp. (c) no. 3178 of 2005) was filed against the final order dated 9.4.2004 passed by the high court of kerala in c.m.a. no. 63 of 2000.4. we have heard the arguments advanced by mr. k. sukumaran, learned senior counsel for the appellant and the arguments of mr. t.lv. iyer, mr. m.n. krishnamani and mr. l.n. rao, learned senior counsel for the respective respondents. we have carefully perused the orders passed in c.m.a. no. 63/2000 and also the orders passed in r.p. no. 359/2003 and we have also considered other documents placed on record. a careful perusal of the orders in c.m.a. and the review petition, in our opinion, would reveal that both the appeals lack merits and liable to be dismissed for the reasons recorded in the orders passed in c.m.a. and review petition. when the instant matter came up for hearing before us on the last occasion, we passed the order at the request of mr. k. sukumaran, teamed senior counsel for the appellant and an opportunity was given to deposit a sum of rs.2 crores to show the bonafide of the appellant. accordingly, we passed the following orders on 5.9.2006:heard learned senior counsel appearing on either side at some length.during the pendency of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2006 (SC)

Shanti Devi Vs. Daropti Devi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-14-2006

Reported in : 2007(2)AWC1153(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN83; 2006(5)CTC262; 2006(13)SCALE577

s.b. sinha, j.1. leave granted.2. an order of remand passed by a division bench of the delhi high court dated 07.11.2003 passed in r.f.a. no. 435 of 1992 is in appeal before us.3. the parties are sisters being the daughters of shri tara chand madan and smt. budho bai (since deceased). tara chand madan died on 21.03.1954. smt. budho bai executed a deed of sale in respect of the property bearing no. 16/26, old rajinder nagar, new delhi, by a registered deed dated 14.06.1965. she allegedly disowned respondent no. 1 as her daughter. a will was executed by her on 22.02.1977, beneficiary whereof was said to be the appellant. smt. budho bai died on 20.04.1980.4. appellant filed an application for mutation of her name. respondent filed a suit for perpetual injunction, which was marked as civil suit no. 308 of 1980, claiming, inter alia, for the following reliefs:(a) a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant no. 3 from dealing the said property in any manner whatsoever and from getting the said property no. 16/26, situated at old rajinder nagar, new delhi, together with the lease hold rights of the land thereunder admeasuring 85 sq. yds. or thereabouts substituted/transferred exclusively in her name to the exclusion of the plaintiffs from defendants nos. 1 & 2 on the basis of the alleged will dated 22.02.1977 and also restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from enforcing or acting in any manner whatsoever on the basis of the said alleged will dated 22.02.1977 and thereby .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 2006 (SC)

Mathew Oommen Vs. Suseela Mathew

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-03-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC786; 2006(2)ALD22(SC); 2006(2)ALT3(SC); 2006(1)AWC790(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(2)CHN48; 2006(1)CTC300; [2006(2)JCR111(SC)]; JT2006(1)SC225; 2006(2)KarLJ80; 2006(1)KLT626

arun kumar, j.1. the appellant filed a petition for grant of letters of administration in respect of a will said to have been executed by his father late k.o. mathew. k.o. mathew was a practicing advocate of the local bar. the will in question is said to have been executed on 15.10.1984. the testator died on 24.10.1984. the appellant is the sole beneficiary under the will. the testator was survived by three children i.e. son, the appellant herein and two daughters named suseela, the contesting respondent, and leela. both the daughters were married during the lifetime of the testator and admittedly had been well provided for at the time of their marriage by the father. respondent is the only contestant, who herself is an officer in the local electricity board while her husband was an officer in the army. the other daughter leela is a practicing doctor with md qualification. the second daughter is not a party to the proceedings. she never contested the will of her father. the parties are christians and were governed by the travancore christian succession act, 1917. under this act when a daughter is married and she is given rs. 5000/- or more at the time of marriage, she has no right of inheritance in her father's estate. respondent suseela had admitted in her statement as dw 1 that her father had given her rs. 30,000/- and 45 gold sovereigns at the time of her marriage. however, a question of validity of the travancore christian succession act, 1917 had been raised and a writ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 2006 (SC)

Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority Vs. K.S. Narayan

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-11-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC3379; 2007(4)BomCR436; JT2006(9)SC27; 2006(6)KarLJ712; 2006(10)SCALE163; (2006)8SCC336

g.p. mathur, j. 1. the issue involved in these appeals, by special leave, is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. for the sake of convenience facts of civil appeal 8307 of 2002, which has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2001 passed by karnataka high court in r.f.a. no. 406 of 2001, shall be stated.2. the respondent k.s. narayan filed original suit no. 5371 of 1989 in the court of city civil judge, bangalore, praying that a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendant bangalore development authority, their agents and servants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property and from demolishing any structure situate thereon. the case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows. the plaintiff purchased the property in dispute bearing no. 46, situated in banasawadi village, k.r. pura hobli, bangalore south taluk from s. narayana gowda by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.6.1985. the erstwhile owners of the property had obtained conversion certificate from the tehsildar and the property is situated in a lay out which is properly approved by obtaining conversion for non- agricultural use from the competent authority. the plaintiff applied for mutation entries and the same was granted in his favour. the property in dispute was not covered by any acquisition proceedings as neither notice of acquisition had been received nor any award .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2006 (SC)

Tulsan Vs. Pyare Lal and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-29-2006

Reported in : 2006(4)AWC3855(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(1)CHN92; 2007(2)CTC186; JT2006(9)SC254; 2006(10)SCALE69; (2006)10SCC782

s.b. sinha, j.1. leave granted.2. the parties are co-sharers. respondent no. 1 herein filed a suit against bir singh, respondent no. 3 as also appellant herein for permanent injunction. appellant is wife of respondent no. 2. a settlement was arrived at by and between the parties. the terms of the settlement were reduced to writing. it was filed before the court and accepted. a decree was passed on the basis of the terms of the said settlement. it was recorded therein:.now, the panchayat has settled the disputes amongst the parties to the effect that the portion where there is abadi and which is in the possession of which party, has been given to the same party and that there is no objection to the second party in this regard nor shall be there any objection in the future also. apart from it has been decided that the 1/3rd portion of the remaining lands shall go to pyare lal and 1/3rd portion shall go to amrit pal and mohan lal and ved prakash sons of kewal, grand sons of bir singh and the 1/3rd share shall go to bir singh son of shri asa ram. it has been further decided that all the criminal and civil cases going on between the parties shall be withdrawn and they shall be bound by the same. apart from the above, the will executed earlier shall be treated as cancelled and a new will shall be executed in the light of the above decision. all the three parties shall bear the expenses in equal-shares. for which none of the parties shall have any objection. it has been further .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 2006 (SC)

Lankeshwar Malakar and ors. Vs. R. Deka and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-30-2006

Reported in : 2006(14)SCALE46

order1. the plaintiffs are before us questioning the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 21.8.198 passed by a learned single judge of the high court of assam, whereby and whereunder the second appeal preferred by the appellant against a judgment and order dated 23.5.1988 passed by the assistant district judge, barpeta, in title appeal no. 46/1986, was dismissed. the basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.2. the lands in suit and other lands belong to one durga malakar. he is the paternal uncle of the plaintiffs' father nareswar malakar. the exact date of death of durga malakar is not known. he left behind his widow, namely, gandhari. the dispute between the parties revolves on the execution of a will by durga malakar in favour of the plaintiffs on 8.10.1958 and execution of a purported deed of gift dated 5.5.1958 which was in the name of his wife gandhari.3. before we advert to the questions raised before us we may notice that gandhari by reason of a sale deed dated 21.1.1960 conveyed her right, title and interest in the properties in question purported to be based on the said deed of gift dated 25.5.1959 in favour of hamchandra malakar. arvinda sarma allegedly entered into a deed of exchange of land with the said hemchandra, grandfather of the respondent herein; pursuant whereto the grandfather allegedly came in possession of the lands in question. the names of the respondents were entered into the revenue records of rights. the plaintiffs therefore .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 2006 (SC)

Om Prakash and ors. Vs. Shiv Kumar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-06-2006

Reported in : 2007(2)ALT38(SC); 2007(1)AWC466(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN26; [2007(3)JCR154(SC)]; 2006(13)SCALE657

markandey katju, j.1. this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the himachal pradesh high court dated 28.5.1999 in rsa no. 99 of 1992.2. heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for possession of the land in question alleging that one smt. ram ditti, widow of data ram was owner in possession of the said land and she died issueless in october, 1983 leaving behind the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs as the only heir. it is alleged that the defendant-appellants had got a false and fabricated will purporting to be of smt. ram ditti prepared and on that basis got mutation in the revenue record with the connivance of the revenue officials and also obtained possession.4. the defendant-appellants contested the suit and it is alleged that the will of smt. ram ditti said to be executed in favour of the defendants on 29.6.1997, was a valid will which was registered before the sub-registrar on 30.6.1967. the trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed that judgment and decreed the suit and the judgment of the first appellate court was upheld by the high court.5. both the first appellate court as well as the high court have held that the burden was on the defendants who were the propounders of the will to remove any suspicious circumstances, but the defendant-appellants have failed to do so. various circumstances have been noticed by the first appellate court and the high .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 2006 (SC)

Meera Chauhan Vs. Harsh Bishnoi and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-13-2006

Reported in : 2007(1)AWC469(SC); 2007(1)CTC89; [2007(3)JCR155(SC)]; 2006(13)SCALE581

tarun chatterjee, j.1. leave granted.2. bungalow no. 12 at thimayya road, cantonment lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') originally belonged to smt. vimla bishnoi since deceased who was the mother of the respondent nos.1 and 2. by a registered will executed by her, the suit property was bequeathed in favour of anil bishnoi, who is the respondent no. 2 in this appeal. on 15th of may 1996 smt. vimla bishnoi expired. on 11th of june 1996 harsh bishnoi, who is the respondent no. 1 in this appeal, applied for mutation before the army authorities, which was rejected by them by an order dated 5th january 1998. 3. a suit has been filed, being suit no. 199/2002, in the court of civil judge (sr. div.) lucknow by the respondent no. 1 for declaration of title over the suit property against the respondent no. 2 on the basis of an oral family settlement of the year 1988. in the plaint, the respondent no. 1 herein, has prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondent no. 2 from interfering with his possession over the suit property. in the suit, an application for injunction restraining the respondent no. 2 from transferring, alienating or encumbering the same has been filed. on 6th may 2002 on the application for injunction, an ex-parte interim order of injunction restraining the respondent no. 2 from transferring, alienating or encumbering the suit property was passed. it is therefore clear that no interim order of injunction was granted by the court against .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2006 (SC)

Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. Rajendra Prasad and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-24-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC2965; 2006(2)AWC1763(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(3)CHN13; [2006(3)JCR168(SC)]; JT2006(3)SC221; RLW2007(1)SC290; 2006(2)SCALE699; (2006)4SCC432

s.b. sinha, j.1. leave granted. 2. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th september, 1988 passed by a learned single judge of the jharkhand high court, ranchi in appeal from appellate decree no. 176 of 1988 whereby and whereunder a second appeal preferred by the respondents herein from a judgment and decree dated 18.7.1988 passed by the 6th additional district judge, palamau at daltonganj in title appeal no. 26 of 1987 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.6.1987 passed by munsif, daltonganj in title suit no. 11 of 1986, was allowed. 3. the respondents herein filed a suit against the appellant, inter alia, for a declaration that the transaction dated 24.6.1977, although ostensibly expressed in the shape of a deed of sale, was in fact a transaction of usufructuary mortgage and for a further declaration that the said transaction stands redeemed under section 12 of the bihar money lenders act, 1974. the respondents herein further sought for a decree directing the appellant to deliver vacant possession of the suit land to them, failing which they might be put back in possession thereof through the process of court. the respondents averred that they were occupancy raiyats of the suit land. the appellant herein allegedly gave an advance of rs.3,000/- on their executing a deed of usufructuary mortgage in respect of the suit land. however, allegedly the appellant asked them to execute a deed of sale on the ground that he did not possess any money .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //