SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 344

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
OM PRATAP SONI – Appellant
Versus
RANA PRATAP SONI – Respondent


SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) THIS application has been filed by the defendant seeking framing of an additional issue as under: "to what amount the plaintiff is liable to pay to the defendant for use and occupation of the suit premises from the date of filing of the suit. "

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has filed a suit for partition in respect of property No. 180, jor Bagh, New Delhi. The stand which has been taken by the defendant is that the defendant is the sole owner of the property though it was purchased in the name of a partnership firm as the funds flowed from the defendant. Issues were framed on 17. 2. 2005.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant/defendant contends that the provisions of order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) would apply to the present case if read together with Order 20 rule 18 of the said Code. Rule 12 refers to a decree of possession and mesne profits and is made applicable where a suit is filed for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent and mesne profits. It is in such a case that a Court may pass a decree for the rents which have accrued on the property during the period prior to t










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top