Back
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Siddharth Bajaj – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Kumar Bajaj – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant petitions have been filed by the Petitioners herein challenging the Order dated 07.02.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in CM(M) No. 1168/2021 & CM(M) No. 537/2019; order dated 04.03.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in REVIEW PET. No. 53/2022 and order dated 27.01.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in CM Nos. 48565/2022 & 49947/2022 in CM(M) No. 1168/2021 & CM Nos. 48560/2022 & 49954/2022 in CM(M) No. 537/2019. This case has a chequered history.
2. The Respondent No. 1 herein is the Plaintiff in a suit being CS No. 57749/2016. The case of the Plaintiff is that he along with his deceased uncle - late Sh. Jagdish Lal Bajaj (Grand-father of Petitioners No. 1 & 2 herein) purchased a plot bearing No. 1, Golf Links, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’) vide sale deed dated 25.04.1964. It is stated that two different houses were constructed on the said plot. It is stated that eastern side of the house is in the possession of Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff and the western side of the house is in possession of Petitioners herein/Defendants No. 2 to 4. It is stated that Sh. Jagdish Lal Bajaj passed away in 1976 and he was survive
There is a right in favour of a co-owner to perfect his title in respect of a property jointly owned by him and therefore, seek conversion from leasehold to freehold and nutation of the property.
The intertwined interests of co-owners in property and the need to minimize litigation influenced the Court's decision to allow the conversion and mutation of the property from leasehold to freehold.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Ravish Agrawal, Sanjay Agrawal For the Respondent : Pushpendra Yadav, R. N. Singh, Akshay Pawar
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC should not change the nature of the suit or introduce new causes of action, and must be necessary for the proper adjudication of the case wit....
Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of Order 21 post amendment wherein the executing court has to determine under Rule 101 Order 21 of the Code that the question raised has legally arisen between the parties ....
The Court's decision emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the need for a thorough consideration of the merits of the case by the appellate a....
Jurisdiction of Court - Only wrong decision may not be a ground for exercise of jurisdiction under this article unless wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse of power by subo....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and R....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
