DEEPAK GUPTA
Richpal – Appellant
Versus
Ranjit – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.
These two Regular Second Appeals have arisen out of the proceedings of the same suit. Suit for declaration (registered as Civil Suit No.66 of 1980, instituted on 22.03.1979) filed by plaintiffs was decreed by trial court on 6.11.1981. Two appeals emanated, one (registered as CA No.4- 13 of 1982/1986) by some of the defendants; and the other (registered as CA No.7-13/5-13 of 1982/1986) by subsequent vendees from all the defendants. Both appeals were dismissed by the first appellate court vide two separate judgments both dated 21.10.1986 and hence these appeals.
2. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.
Admitted Facts:
3. One Dhanna was owner of 142 Bighas 11 Biswas of land situated in village Kasni Kalan, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani (Haryana) [herein referred to as 'suit land' or 'land of Kasni Kalan']. Said Dhanna also owned 20 Bighas 5 Biswas of land besides half share in another 32 Bighas 6 Biswas of land situated in village Kalali, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani (Haryana) [hereinafter referred to as 'land of village Kalali']. On the death of Dhanna, he was succeeded by his three sons nam
A. Nawab John v. V.N. Subramanyam
Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon
Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy
Hardevinder Singh v. Paramjit Singh
Khemchand Shanker Choudhary v. Vishnu Hari Patil
Korukonda Chalapathi Rao v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar
Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini
Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur
Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug Dass v. Som Dass (deceased) through his Chela Shiama Dass
State of Punjab (now Haryana) v. Amar Singh
Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited
Unregistered family partition deeds creating rights in praesenti require registration; exclusive possession by co-sharers does not confer ownership.
Revenue records do not confer ownership; adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of denial of title.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compulsory registration of documents that create or extinguish title in joint property, as well as the principles of family set....
(1) Partition Suit – A Person who does not have a share in such property cannot be a party to a suit for partition.(2) Nomenclature of document, whether it was a sale deed or family settlement deed o....
Oral family settlements are valid and require no registration if acknowledged by all parties, and prior admissions bind parties in subsequent related suits.
Point of law: Family property – Settlement – Admission - Statement made in the earlier plaint constitutes an admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Thus, the Plaintiffs would be bound by the said admi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.