BAALASUBRAMANNYAMM
04 March 2011 at 14:10
Sir,
In our SLP, the Respondents have taken an adjournment for filing counter on our petitions. Accordingly the Court has given 3 weeks time for filing oounter and 2 weeks time for filing our rejointer therefrom. Even now also, the Respondents have not filed their cournters, since 3 weeks time have already been lapsed.
I want to know even now also can they file their cournter or can they ask one more adjournment for filing counter.
Ajai
21 February 2011 at 17:00
Hi,
I am writing in behalf of my father-in-law and mother-in-law who are in Sangli, Maharashtra (Their age is of late 50's)
They have applied for a passport, and they had given a few documents as proof of identity / name / birth.
After a few weeks, when checking on the status of the passport through online, it was written that both of them should go to the passsport office in person, as there seems to be a problem with the date of birth.
When they went to the passport office, it was pointed out to them that the date of birth in the tenth standard certificate and in the PAN card do not match. At the time of school education, the date of birth was put as a random basis and not specific as how it is being done of recent. This is understood. But, although they tried to convince the passport officer that the date of brith in the X std certficate is wrong, the passport officer was not convinced and he said that a court order is required and then only he can go ahead with the passport application. They dont have a birth certificate as they never thought it was important to take one. They were born in a village in Kerala, and going back there to get the birth certificate or rectify the Xstd certifcate will take a duration of atleast 6 months to a year or maybe more. They want this passpor to visit their only daughter who is in U.K. and she is now preganant.
When enquired with a lawyer, he said that the step would be 1) To file a case against the passport officer who was incharge of the passport application form. 2) To then issue a court order.
Knowing on the drawbacks of filing a case and delay, I am not sure if this is the right approach. I would really appreciate if someone could guide me on whether this is the right method or do we need to only request for a court order (declaratory order).
I would also appreciate if someone can guide me on what are the documents required to get the court order? How much time will it take to get the court order (if you can give me a break up of the tiimings, that would be well appreciated).
Please do consider the urgency of the request, and I would appreciate if someone with adequate knowledge / experience can reply back so we can go ahead in the right direction. Only after they get the passport, will they be able to apply for a visa, which will again take its own time and then they can come and see their daughter during her labor time, and the moment when they will become grand parents.
Thanks
Ajai
PLD
19 February 2011 at 17:14
Our SLP Civil Case was admitted and notice was issued to private sole respondent.
The Bench was inclined to grant interim stay in our favour but the respondent's counsel managed to convince them to grant time to file reply citing his irreparable losses if interim stay was granted.
2 weeks' time for their reply and 2 weeks for our rejoinder was granted and direction was made for immediate listing thereafter. This was 3 weeks ago and they have not filed any reply till date and show no signs of doing so in near future since they wish to delay the whole matter.
What should we do? Our advocate suggests that we should file an I.A. for interim stay citing deliberate delay on their part. Or should be wait for the whole 4 weeks to lapse and then try to have case listed at earliest? Is this delay by them solid ground enough to move an I.A. and get success before SC, given the costs involved?
Comments and any other suggestions will be highly obliging.
sunil nautiyal
16 February 2011 at 22:03
The Society CGHS constructed 264 flats for its members along with 118 covered car parking spaces (CCPS) in Stilt Area. The members were allotted CCPS through lucky draw on license basis on 24-02-1991. However, by the lapse of time some of the members sold the flats alongwith garages and some of the members sold the flats and garages separately. Knowing this some members who were kept in waiting list of car garages appealed before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. The appeal was allowed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal vide order dated 08-06-2007 with the direction to the society to take legal action against the original allottees of the parking space on attorney or sale basis and recover the parking space from them and to allot them to the waiting list members on the First Come First Serve Basis. The Society challenged the order and the High Court of Delhi set aside the order passed by Delhi Cooperative Tribunal making the Rule absolute directing that in case of sale of flats, rights in the car parking can also be transferred but the same cannot be transferred to an outsider who is not an owner of the flat. At para 20 of the judgment learned counsel for the contesting respondents sought to contend that there were some transfers made not to the same person who purchased the flat but to another flat owner in the society. Such a course of action could have been doubtful but in view of the resolution passed on 30-09-07 to treat the CCPS on ownership basis with heritable and transferable rights at par with the flats, no grievance even in that behalf can be made. Thus aggrieved my right since seller of my flat sold CCPS on 2002 and I bought the flat in the year 2005 through agreement to sell. My argument is that CCPS is part of stilt area and part of common area and can not be sold separately as held by Apex Court in civil appeal 2544/2010. Now wait listed members filed a SLP in the Supreme Court of India. I was never a party in lower courts, but can I file an impleadment application with above mentioned SLP though relief sought is different?? If not, then what is the procedure of filing a SLP as I was not a party in any court??
jitender pawaria
13 February 2011 at 21:11
R/Experts,
sir i am practicing lawyer and in one case my client got mortgage against the immovable property due some reason he not repay the mortgage amount bake file a suit for recovery and same was decreed after that bank file execution my client file objection against the execution and in execution my client pay the amount to auction purchaser and court allowed the same. after that meanwhile some one sale the mortgaged land to others and when fraud sale deed exeuted at that time original sale deed in possession of bank. my client also filed the affidavit regarding the sale deed. after all my client filed execution u/o 21 rule 47 and J.Ds filed objection in excution and same was dissmissed can J.Ds filed the appeal for the objection.
rajagopalan
07 February 2011 at 10:06
Dear sir,
Please give direction for passing after prleminery decree and commission was partion in that property by his view the path way for the plot was only 2.9 m maxium path for motor accessiable for is how much. The family temple and temple pound isseperate the midle of the temple and pond path way is provided , some portion of the way is in temple pond . the land given as share to me is also 4cents in temple pond balance useful land is 9 cents outof 13cents.othershareholders have no burden they have get 4m path way and 14cents each share commission report is onesided. Objection rased in this commission report and the judge in subcourt take decession to the Mediatior cell. Please give further steps related this case and normal steps wehave totake .please give valuable information and further step taken to this case Sir. Please give expert information
Shashikant Madkaiker
03 February 2011 at 10:08
Dear Members,
Section 381-A of the BMC Act.says that any new well, tank, pond, cistern, or fountain shall not be dug or constructed without the commissioner's permission. Would installation of a plastic water tank in the flat be a violation of the ACT . On the face of it it is quite clear that any new well tank pond or cistern shall not be dug or constructed without the commissioner's permission, but it does not specifically bar storage of water and the containers for the same-maybe it is drum or a tank or for that even your flush tank in the toilet-all are storage tanks of small or large capacities.
Also there was a newspaper report that indicated that this Section was going to be amended by the BMC , has the same been amended and if so what does the amendment say?
Please enlighten , in short can a resident install a plastic tank in the loft of the bathroom or kitchen LEGALLY ?
Rgds
SGM
PADMANABHAM R
29 January 2011 at 12:08
Hello Sirs,
My name is Babu.
We purchased a property in the year 2003 15x54 feet in Bangalore under registered sale deed from the vendor. While we purchasing the property the owner had requested us to permit her sister to live in a small portion of 10x10 feet room for 1 year because she is poor.
We permitted her to stay in that room with out any written agreement becuase she born and broutup in the same house. she accepted to vacate the permises when we require.
Now we are prepared to built a house in the schedule premises. She had gone to the police station
and given a complaint against us that she is the owner of the premises under a GPA from the vendor
she also filled a case in the civil court and obtained temporary injunction against us.
Through detailed study of the matter we came to know the following facts:
The mother deed of the property belongs to one Mrs. Bibijan site measuing 30x54 feet
in the the year 1976 she sold the half of the portion is 15x54 feet to one Mr. Eshwar Rao
remaining portion of 15x54 is sold after 4 months to one Mr. Subramaniam.
Mr. Eshwar took the posession of the property and built house in the said premises without any
dispute.
The other portion owner of Mr. Subramaniam had not taken the posession of the premises nor changed the Katha in the municipal records he does't have any thing in his name like KATHA Certificate,
Water, Electricty Connection even Voter ID.
He died in the year 1999 now his son Mr. Venkatesh got the rights of the property but unfortunately he is also not obtained anything in his name and not taken pocession of the premises.
In this situation Smt. Bibijan (the mother deed holder) gifted the property to her Daughter-in-law Smt. Moti Begum under registered gift deed.
In 2003 Mrs. Moti Begaum (Giftdeed Holder) had sold the property to us by vitue of registered sale deed.
Now the issue is Mrs. M. Begaum ( Now living in one room) had showing the fake documents stating that
she had purchased the property from Mr.Venkatesh under a GPA and sale consideration in the year 1998
but the documents had not been registered since 1998 to till date and she has not changed the municipal records in her name meanwhile the original owner of Mr. Venkatesh had submitted a memo to the court that he had not given any GPA to Mrs. M. Begaum.
After this she putted a specific performace case against Mr. venkatesh the case is under process.
Mr. Venkatesh is not against us and he had not complained to any one like police,municipality,court etc.
Please let me know how can we get the property We are still in the same premises exept one room.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Filing a case for cancellation of nonexistant property documents
PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING CASE FOR ANSWERING:
A. COURT FEE IS TO BE PAID ON WHICH PROPERTY VALUE - ONLY EXTENDED PORTION OR BOTH THE ACTUAL AND EXTENDED PORTION?
B. CAN A RELIEF FOR REMOVAL OF ELECTRICITY CONNECTION WHICH WAS BASED ON FRADULENT PROPERTY PAPERS BE PRAYED BEFORE THE COURT?
C. WHAT IS THE MOST PROBABLE OUTCOME OF THE CASE?
D. SHALL THE PLANTIFF COMPROMISE WITH THE DEFENDENT IF THE COURT ASKS FOR MEDIATION?
E. IS THERE A NEED TO FILE SEPARATE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT?
F. WHAT OTHER SUGGESTIONS WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE?
** THE CASE IS TO BE FILED IN A DAY OR TWO.ITS URGENT.
That the cause of action for filing the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant when the plaintiff purchased the flat bearing No. B – IV/123C, DDA Janta Flat, xyz Road, and when it was informed by the seller that the possession of the extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff cannot be give as the tenant occupying the same has obtained a stay order from the court of law and when it was assured that the needful is being done in the matter and soon the tenant will vacate the said extended portion and thereafter the same shall be handed over the to the plaintiff and when no information with regard to the alleged litigation was divulged to the plaintiff as mentioned here in above, it also arose when in March 2009 the plaintiff came to know that the said tenant has sold the said extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff as mentioned herein above to one Shri Avtar Singh, claiming it to be his own property and narrating its address as to be bearing No. B – IV/123D, DDA Janta Flat, it also arose when coming to know about the said sale transaction the plaintiff rigorously inquired about the same when it was revealed that the said tenant claimed to be owner of the said extended portion/suit property on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff, having purchased the same from one Shri Charanjit Singh, who intern claimed to have purchased the said extended portion/suit property on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff from the original allotee and showed the photocopies of some papers in this regard, and when the plaintiff and her husband confronted the said Shri Sushil Arora with the complete chain through which the plaintiff had purchased her flat and when it was represented that the said documents in possession of the plaintiff are not genuine and the complete chain is with him and when the said Shri Sushil Arora did not handover any document in this regard, it also arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant when the plaintiff became suspicious about the deal and started making enquires and when one Shri Avtar Singh took over the possession of the suit property claiming himself to be a tenant under one Shri Mathur, it also arose when no further identity of the said Shri Mathur was disclosed and when the said Shri Avtar Singh vacated the suit property/extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff in June 2010 and when the plaintiff and her husband got the electricity connection feeding electricity of the said extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff, disconnected, it also arose when the defendant claiming to be owner of the extended portion/suit property bearing No. B – IV/123D, DDA Janta Flat, Lawrence Road, Delhi – 110035, on 29.06.2010 produced an agreement to sell in respect of the same before the electricity department for getting the electricity connection restored to the said extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff, it also arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant when the plaintiff for the purpose to ascertain the legality of the said extended portion/suit property on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff filed RTI applications with the DDA, MCD, Sub-registrar, Rohini and when she received replies form the said departments as aforesaid, it also arose when the plaintiff filed a police complaint of the fraud been played by the defendant. As the defendant is claiming her title on the basis of forged, fabricated and baseless documents which do not has nay legal value in the eyes of law and has further failed to stop claiming her ownership in the said extended portion/suit property up and above on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff, the said cause of action still subsists.
22. That for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued as under: -
(i) for the of relief of declaration for declaring the alleged agreement to sell dated _________ as null and void the suit is valued for Rs._________/- on which a requisite court fee of Rs._______/- is being paid
(ii) for the relief of possession the suit is valued at Rs. _________ on which a requisite court fee of Rs._______ is being paid