Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Anjalli Bansall – Appellant
Versus
Atul Bansal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. Ms. Anjalli Bansall (hereafter `the appellant') has filed the present intra-court appeal impugning an order dated 03.03.2017 (hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant's application (being IA 12912/2015) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter `the CPC') seeking dismissal of the suit, being C.S (OS) No. 3966/2014 captioned `Atul Bansal and Anr. v. Anjalli Bansall', was rejected.
2. The learned Single Judge had observed that respondent no.2 was claiming his share in the immovable property through his mother who had died intestate and therefore, the said claim could not be rejected without trial on the basis that certain documents indicated that Commodore J.M.L. Bansal had disinherited respondent no.2.
3. The respondents had filed the above-mentioned suit, [being CS(OS) 3966/2014], inter alia, claiming rights in the basement and the ground floor of the built-up property bearing No. 26, Navjivan Vihar, New Delhi (hereafter `the property'). The basement and ground floor of the property along with "1/3rd share in stilts area/car parking space for two genset in stilts (after leaving
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief sought in a suit must be based on the facts admitted in the plaint, and claims exceeding the admitted facts may not be sustainable.
The court emphasized the importance of clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admissions for the exercise of discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and highlighted the principle that possession ....
The plaintiff failed to prove joint ownership of the property or contribution to its acquisition, affirming that self-acquired property cannot be claimed as joint without evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Benami Transaction (Prohibitions) Act, 1988, and the Limitation Act, 1963 in determining the validity of property transactio....
No cause of action exists for partition without challenging the underlying gift deed; the plaint cannot be rejected on grounds of limitation based on the alleged fraud.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the parties to partition of the suit property, rejection of preliminary objections raised by the defendant, and the passing of a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a family arrangement deed indicating a prior oral partition, lack of possession by the donor at the time of executing the gift deed, and the d....
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
