Wish you all a happy and prosperous New Year. 
God bless you all with great health, wealth and prosperity .
                                                                                                                  with regards
                                                                                                                            yours
                                                                                                                         advocatemmmohan

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursuance of a sham partnership deed and  was  not  merely assisting in the shop as a son-in-law.-  The High  Court held that the respondent-tenant, Hakim Rai had not sub-let the  premises  to his  so
Read more

Apex court digest - Jan.2017 [4],

Or.39, rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. - suit for injunction - interim application for interim injunction - Trial court rejected - High court granted - Apex court set aside the High court and restore the trial court order-  The Plaintiff along with his Maternal grand-mother  are in use, occupation and possession of the  premises-The Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are the Paternal uncles  of  the Plaintiff’s mother -Defendant No.6,  is a son of the Defendant No.5 and Defendant No.4 is the sister  of  Defendants1,2,3 and 5 -Mohammed Ali H. Tejani (called the said Deceased)  was  a  Co-owner along with Defendant Nos.1 to 5 in respect of a Plot of  Land  bearing Plot No.202-D, along with the building comprising of ground with  one  upper floor-The said deceased  executed a Will dated 28th September 1991 under which  the  deceased  bequeathed  his  1/7th share in the plot of land in favour of the Defendant Nos.1 to  5.  The  said Will is probated in the High Court  -  the maternal grand-mother of the res
Read more