Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: partition act 1893 section 5 representation of parties under disability Court: rajasthan jodhpur Year: 2015

Aug 18 2015 (HC)

Ram Kumar Vs. State and Ors

Court : Rajasthan - Jodhpur

Decided on : Aug-18-2015

..... from getting the permission of sale from the revenue authorities.4. rajendra and satpal, sons of het ram filed a suit in the revenue court under sections 88 and 188 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955, for declaration and partition against their father het ram, uncle hanuman and grand-mother mst.dhapi and remaining three brothers, with the averments that the land was ancestral ..... executed and registered, the appellant-ram kumar may file a suit for division of the holding under section 53 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 to get the land partitioned.2. brief facts giving rise to this special appeal, which was held to be maintainable vide order dated 5.5.2015 as it was filed prior to the amendment of civil procedure code providing non-maintainability of letters ..... was collusive.19. relying on the judgment of the supreme court in bhanwar singh v/s puran and ors. ((2008) 3 scc87, it was argued that the provisions of section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 are not applicable when the surviving members of the co-parcenary had already partitioned their properties and become owners to the extent of their share. the property ..... share after the death of her husband and thus, she also filed a suit under section 88 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 against het ram and hanuman, which was decreed on 25.10.1985 and the name of mst.dhapi was also added alongwith het ram and hanuman.5. it was stated in the plaint that 15 bighas of land of chak nos .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2015 (HC)

Ram Kumar Vs. Het Ram

Court : Rajasthan - Jodhpur

Decided on : Aug-18-2015

..... from getting the permission of sale from the revenue authorities.4. rajendra and satpal, sons of het ram filed a suit in the revenue court under sections 88 and 188 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955, for declaration and partition against their father het ram, uncle hanuman and grand-mother mst.dhapi and remaining three brothers, with the averments that the land was ancestral ..... executed and registered, the appellant-ram kumar may file a suit for division of the holding under section 53 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 to get the land partitioned.2. brief facts giving rise to this special appeal, which was held to be maintainable vide order dated 5.5.2015 as it was filed prior to the amendment of civil procedure code providing non-maintainability of letters ..... was collusive.19. relying on the judgment of the supreme court in bhanwar singh v/s puran and ors. ((2008) 3 scc87, it was argued that the provisions of section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 are not applicable when the surviving members of the co-parcenary had already partitioned their properties and become owners to the extent of their share. the property ..... share after the death of her husband and thus, she also filed a suit under section 88 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 against het ram and hanuman, which was decreed on 25.10.1985 and the name of mst.dhapi was also added alongwith het ram and hanuman.5. it was stated in the plaint that 15 bighas of land of chak nos .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 2015 (HC)

Madan Lal Vs. M/S Jain Bros

Court : Rajasthan - Jodhpur

Decided on : Feb-27-2015

..... section 17(2) (vi) of the registration act, 1908. if only shop was purchased by any party to the partition suit & was transferred to other party ..... not admissible in evidence did not confer the rights on the plaintiff-landlord to file the present suit for eviction. the relevant findings of the first appellate court are as under:- 22- ?? - ??? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? e ? ? ?&??&? ? ? ?? ?? ?h ?? ? ?$ ? ?? ?? ? ? ?? m ? (?1????) ?? ? ?? ) ? / ?? ?1?/ ? ??? ?? ???[ ..... ? ? ? ) ? 3 ???! ? ?? ? ??? ? ?? ? ? ? ?? ??? ????? ? ? ? ? ??? ?? ????? ? )? / ?? ?1?/ ? ? ?) ?? ???? ?? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ?! ? ? ?? ?? ? ? ?? ?! ? )3 ?1?/ ?-? ? ?? ? ? ?? ?? / ? ? ??? ? ??? ?? ???[ ?? ?& ?-? ? ?)? ?) ?? ?? ? ? ? ?! ???? ?? ? ?? ?)? ?) ?? ?? ?3? ? ?? ?? ? ? ?? 3 3? ??? ? ??m ) ?? ?-? ?e? ? ? ??$ ??-? ????r ?$?& ? ? ? ? ?, ? ? ?? ? ?? 3? ? ?? ?3 ? ? - ???! ? ? ? ? ? ?? 3? ?? ??? ? ??m ) ?? ?-? ?? ? ? ??? ?? csa no.70/2011 madan lal vs. m/s jain brothers judgment dt:27/2/.2015 5/14 ???[ ?? ?& ) ? ?1?/ ?) ?? ?? ? ) ? ??? ? ?? ? ? ?? ???&? ??? - ? ???? ?? ? ? : ?? ? ? ? ?! ?? ? ? ?? ??? ? ??? ?? ?! ?? ?? ?? ?! ??s ?? ? )3 ?? ? ? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?! ???k ? ? ) ??" ?????e w ?? ??? ? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? 3 ? ? ? ?? ? ?? ? ? ? ?! ?? ?? ?? ? ? ?! ???? ?? ? ?? ? ??e? ?$?& ?! ?? ????r ? ? ?? ?? ?? / ??-? ????r ? ? ???e? ? ?? ? ??? ?) ?? ? ? ? ??3?? ?? ? ??.? ? ?? ? ?? ?? ??? )? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?)? / ?$?? ?? ??? ?? ? ? 3 ? ??? ? : ?? ? ? ? ?! ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ??? ?) ?? ? ? ? ??3??, ?- ??-? ???&? ??-? ? ?? ????r / ? ? ? ?? ?3? ? ???? ?? ? .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 2015 (HC)

Modu Ram Vs. Board of Revenue Ajmer and Ors

Court : Rajasthan - Jodhpur

Decided on : Feb-16-2015

..... ) cpc, the suit has been filed in violation of provisions of section 80 cpc and the suit was barred under section 207 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 ('the act') as the petitioner has sought declaration regarding the sale deed dated 29.10.2012 as ..... the same be partitioned by metes and bounds and the sale deed dated 29.10.2012 in favour of defendant no.4 be declared illegal. on notice being served, the defendants no.1 to 4 filed application under order vii, rule 11(d) cpc, inter-alia, claiming that state of rajasthan has not been impleaded as party, who is a necessary party under section 79(b ..... claim of tenancy right to the revenue court otherwise the suit remains with the civil court. in view of the express provisions of section 242 of the act, when admittedly, the relief claimed pertains to declaration of tenancy rights and partition which relief can be granted by the revenue court and as held by this court in the case of rukmani (supra) the ..... . civil judge no.1, kota & ors.: 2012(3) wlc (raj.) 289 and pratapi (smt.) v. jhamku & ors.: 2013(3) dnj (raj.) 1112. vehemently opposing the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the relief of declaration of khatedari rights and partition sought in the suit were the main relief and cancellation of the sale deed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2015 (HC)

Smt.Shyama Vs. Prithvi Singh and Ors

Court : Rajasthan - Jodhpur

Decided on : Oct-09-2015

..... the first respondent submits that any transfer made by the appellant of an agricultural land which is subject matter of suit for partition in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 is hit by section 52 of the transfer of property act, 1882 and as such any further proceedings including transfer and conversion of land is subject to outcome of this appeal. mr.parihar ..... (supra), hon'ble apex court while considering a registered adoption deed declined to dislodge the presumption about its validity under section 16 of the act of 1956 on mere technicalities that adoption deed is signed by natural parents as witnesses and not as executing parties. while discussing the manner of appreciation of evidence, in such matters, the court observed that it is not the ..... by the lower court so imperfectly that the appellate court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment. . i have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced by the rival parties and also examined the application under order xli rule 27 cpc as well as its reply by the respondent in conjunction with the lis involved in the matter. the legislature in its wisdom has ..... no.758/2015) came up for consideration before the court on 24.02.2015 and after hearing the rival parties, the said application is allowed and both respondent nos.4 & 5 were imlpleaded as party respondents. the order dated 24.02.2015 reads as under:- the matter comes up on application (ia no.758/2015) filed on behalf of applicants, ms. megha bhandari and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2015 (HC)

Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Sashi and Anr

Court : Rajasthan - Jodhpur

Decided on : Sep-21-2015

..... possession to the plaintiffs.4. the learned trial court framed eight issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties and after taking oral as well as documentary evidence on record, including both the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant, decided the said issues in favour ..... attorney on behalf of her two sons, namely, lalit singh and himmat singh. the said smt.sheila kumari was wife of one shri takht singh, and being owner under the registered sale deed executed in his favour exhibit-a/1a dated 05.10.1983 for a sum of rs.12,000/-, he was not liable to hand over the ..... appearance: mr.r.r.nagori, senior advocate assisted by mr.alkesh agarwal and mr.v.l.thanvi, for the defendant-appellant. mr.ashok chhangani for the plaintiffs-respondents. reportable by the court (oral) :- 1. the defendant-om prakash has filed the present first appeal under section 96 of the code of civil procedure against the plaintiffs/decree-holders smt.shashi w ..... been revoked by the plaintiffs, the defendant was bound to hand over the possession of the western portion of plot no.27 measuring 60 x 45 feet to the plaintiffs.5. the relevant findings of the learned trial court on issues no.4 & 6 in this regard are quoted below for ready reference:- 12. ??? ?? ? 4 ? 6 ??? ?? ? 4 ? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ??? ?.6 ? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ???? ? ?? ? ? ?? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ?? ?? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ?? ? ???$? ??? ? ? ??(? ?? ? ? ? ?) ? ? ? ?? ( ?? ? ???$ 1 ? ????$? .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 2015 (HC)

Dulari Devi and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Jan-15-2015

..... institutions, to give equal opportunity to all including those, who do not have formal education in schools to represent in local governance. the impugned ordinance effectively excludes the direct representation in the posts of sarpanchas, members of the panchayat samiti and zila parishadas. it is violative of the core constitutional philosophy of democratic governance in india, which is based ..... after the process of duly enacting a law in the state assembly. the ordinance is plainly against the objective of the main act, providing for representative democracy for the weaker sections of the society. the panchayati raj institutions under article 40 of the constitution of india in the directive principles of the state, have been perceived to endow them with such ..... 'ble supreme court in its various decisions, to be exercised by the courts, cited as above, all the stay applications are rejected. 43. as directed above, all the parties will file their necessary documents along with affidavits, to either amend or supplement facts and grounds taken in the writ petitions. they may file their additional paper books, and written ..... upon equality of status and opportunity, featuring in the preamble to the constitution of india. 5. the ordinance no.2/2014 has also been challenged being violative of article 14 of the constitution of india, which guarantees to every person equality before the law. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 2015 (HC)

Bhanwar Lal Mundra and Others Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : May-13-2015

..... was so recognized and notified and declared as municipality (nagar palika) class-iv by the state government. there was absolutely no material whatsoever with the state government nor any representations were made by the elected representatives or any other persons to withdraw the notification. 13. learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of kerala high ..... and accordingly, dismiss the appeal as having been rendered infructuous. 9. on 18.9.2009, the state government issued the impugned notification in exercise of the powers under section 3 of the rajasthan municipalities act, 2009 withdrawing the notification dated 6.10.2008 by which the gram panchayat napasar was declared as municipality (nagar palika) class-iv, giving rise to this writ ..... of hon'ble supreme court in tulsipur sugar co. ltd. v/s the notified area committee, tulsipur (air 1980 sc 882) and baldev singh v/s state of himachal pradesh (air 1987 sc 1239), the issuance of notification is a legislative act, which cannot be reversed under section 21 of the general clauses act. 15. learned additional advocate general appearing for the state submits ..... tehsil of village khatu kallan, tehsil jayal district nagaur was de-notified. 16. having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the reasons given by kerala high court in k.p.raveendran and anr. v/s state of kerala and ors. (supra) are much closer in support of the arguments of learned senior counsel for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 2015 (HC)

Smt. Mukut Rajya Laxmi and Anr Vs. Dr.Jitendra Singh and Ors

Court : Rajasthan - Jodhpur

Decided on : Nov-26-2015

..... came into force, the respective parts of mandir palace were declared as properties of all the four incumbents including the proforma respondent by jagir commissioner after due enquiry under section 23 of the act of 1952. later on,rajdadi smt.kalyan kumari who is grand mother of firs.respondent bequeathed the portion of mandir palace owned by her to firs.respondent by ..... and firs.three parts were gifted to smt.kalyan kumari, smt.girdhar kumar and smt.hawa kumari and fourth part was retained by proforma respondent as its owner. after partition of the nation when state of jaisalmer was merged in india, the respective parts of mandir palace became transferred properties of all the four incumbents including the proforma respondent. ..... attitude vis- 6 a-vis respondents-plaintiffs. castigating the petitioners-defendants for their inimical behaviour, respondents-plaintiffs have pleaded that a sense of discord have developed between rival parties and by efflux of time, it has become intolerable for the respondents-plaintiffs to allow the petitioners-defendants as licensee on the said property. respondent-plaintiff no.1 has ..... firs.petitioner who is daughter-in-law of maharawal girdhari singh and, therefore, he has permitted both the petitioners to occupy part of property of mandir palace for their 5 place of residence and dwelling. in order to show cordial relation between maharawal girdhari singh and proforma respondent, maharawal raghunath singh, who is husband of firs.petitioner, execued .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 2015 (HC)

Geeta Devi and Others Vs. Dr. Surendramal Mertiya and Others

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Mar-10-2015

..... denial of title itself, since the property in question was earlier purchased by the father of the present landlord, late sh. sumermal mertiya, and later on upon partition, the landlord dr. surendramal mertiya, got the said share of property including the suit shop, and later on gifted the same to smt. anita mertiya w ..... , jodhpur, in civil original suit no. 129/2007, dr. surendramal mertiya v. smt. geeta devi, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction under section 22 of the rajasthan premises (control of rent and eviction) act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'act of 1950. was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent granting eviction decree with ..... been gifted by the landlord in favour of third party, but continued to collect the rent from the tenant and thus was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under the act of 1950. there is nothing on record in the present case to show that donee under the gift deed, smt. anita mertiya has questioned ..... the possession of the suit shop or house any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and such third ..... parties will also be bound by this decree. the appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court .....

Tag this Judgment!


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