id
stringlengths 14
15
| Titles
stringclasses 2
values | text
stringlengths 101
1.02k
| source
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
1c1465c12ea2-35 | Sri Ashok Goenka & Anr vs Chandra Bhushan Singh & Ors on 15 September, 2009 | Even otherwise this Court does not find that apart from the said Clause 5 of the unregistered agreements for sale there was any material before the court on the basis of which it could have come to the conclusion regarding the plaintiffs being in possession over the suit land. Thus the finding of prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs- respondents is perverse being based on practically no material on the record apart from the reliance upon the unregistered documents which is impermissible after the Amendment Act 48 of 2001. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44290554/ |
1c1465c12ea2-36 | Sri Ashok Goenka & Anr vs Chandra Bhushan Singh & Ors on 15 September, 2009 | Even otherwise as has been laid down by this Court in the case of Fool Kumari Devi(supra) no title could have been claimed by the plaintiffs on the basis of the mere agreements for sale which only entitle them to approach the court for further relief of specific performance of contract but such agreements for sale did not create any interest in the property in their favour which they can use to injunct the owner of the land so far as the right and title over the suit land is concerned. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44290554/ |
1c1465c12ea2-37 | Sri Ashok Goenka & Anr vs Chandra Bhushan Singh & Ors on 15 September, 2009 | The reliance placed by learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashwinkumar K.Patel's case (supra) is of no avail as in the said case the suit was between two sets of purchasers; one directly from the owners of the land and other from the alleged power of attorney holder from the owners but in the said case the clear stand of the owners of the land was that they have put the plaintiff in possession and in the said circumstances the Apex Court held that such possessory right would entitle the plaintiff to an injunction as against the other purchaser of the land who has no possession over the land. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44290554/ |
1c1465c12ea2-38 | Sri Ashok Goenka & Anr vs Chandra Bhushan Singh & Ors on 15 September, 2009 | So far as the case of Sm. Muktakesi Dawn (supra) is concerned the only issue decided therein is that an injunction restraining the pendente lite transfer can be granted in an appropriate case where relief for specific performance is sought. There can be no dispute with the said proposition. However, in the present matter the subsequent sale has already been made through a registered deed of sale by the appellants in favour of respondents nos. 3 to 5.
Thus, on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is clearly of the view that the impugned orders dated 24.11.2003 passed in Title Suit No. 24/03 and Title Suit No. 19/03 cannot be sustained being contrary to the law of the land apart from there being no factual basis for the grant of injunction in such terms and the same are accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44290554/ |
1c1465c12ea2-39 | Sri Ashok Goenka & Anr vs Chandra Bhushan Singh & Ors on 15 September, 2009 | However, considering the fact that the plaintiffs would be put to serious difficulties and inconvenience if there is any further sale of the properties in dispute the appellants and the respondents nos. 3 to 5 are restrained from making any further sale of the properties in question.
It is pointed out by learned counsels that both the suits are at the stage of hearing and two witnesses have already been examined in Title Suit No. 24/03 while the other case is ready for examination of the witnesses. In the said circumstances, the learned court below is directed to proceed expeditiously in the matters and dispose of both the title suits within a period of six months from today.
(Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/ | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44290554/ |