Search Results for "RSA Section 100"

228 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 228 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition Against Dismissal of Obstruction Application in Execution Proceedings — Impugned Order Quashed. Court Held That Executing Court Must Consider Objections of Third Party Obstructor on Merits Under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, and 101 CPC.

The petitioner, Rajesh Enterprises, a partnership firm represented by its partner Naresh Godar Shah, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Regular Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Concurrent Findings of Courts Below Upheld. Suit for Partition and Separate Possession Dismissed as Plaintiff Failed to Prove Joint Family Property and His Possession.

The appellant, Champa Poojari, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), challenging the judgment an...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Second Appeal Case - Punjab Courts Act Applies Over CPC. Substantial Question of Law Not Required for Second Appeals in Punjab Under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918.

The Supreme Court disposed of a civil appeal arising from a regular second appeal decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The sole contention ra...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Section 100 CPC. Suit for Declaration and Injunction Dismissed as Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Title and Possession Over Suit Property.

The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the original suit, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challengin...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Section 100 CPC. Court Held That No Substantial Question of Law Arises When Both Lower Courts Concurrently Found That Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Title and Possession.

The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain immovable property. The trial court d...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Injunction Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Suit for permanent injunction dismissed as plaintiff failed to prove title and possession; substantial questions of law not made out.

The appellant, Smt. Sathyamma, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 3.1...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Declaration and Possession Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Will Alleged to be Forged by Defendant Not Proven; Plaintiffs Established Title as Class II Heirs of Deceased Owner.

The case involves a second appeal filed by the defendant, Subhas Marutirao Yadav, against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the first ap...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Appeals and Cross Objection in Specific Performance and Possession Dispute Over KHB Allotted House. Agreement Holder Fails to Prove Readiness and Willingness to Perform Contract Under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The case involves a dispute over a house property allotted by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) to the respondent, Venkateshulu, in 1989. The appellan...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Appellant's Specific Performance Suit for Lack of Readiness and Willingness — Agreement Holder Not Entitled to Equitable Relief. Concurrent findings affirmed that appellant failed to prove readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The dispute pertains to a house property allotted by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) to the respondent, Venkateshulu, in 1989. The appellant, Smt H ...