Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are sons of plaintiff.1 and plaintiff.5 is the son of plaintiff.2.
Malatibai (2003) 1 SCC 722, Raj Kumar.
AIR 1932 PC 235, the Privy Council has held that in case one of two or more co- sharers had mortgaged an undivided share, the mortgagee takes the security subject to rights of other co-sharers, and the partition if effected, the mortgaged properties are allotted.Mohammedans are never joint in estate but only quints holiday gift guide tenants-in-common.(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue.Whether Bala Mallaiah, his heirs and purchasers had perfected their right, title and interest by virtue of adverse possession?Nabiunnissa in liquidation of her mother's debts, the trial Court found that she paid a sum.1,800 and that the plaintiffs were liable to pay a proportionate amount viz.Rajanga Asari AIR 1965 Madras 355 held (see para 8 therein) that the previous suit was only for injunction relating to the crops.For the latest information, users comments and my answers/explanations, visit the blog 15CA/CB rules revised Again: 15CA/CB May NOT be required for NRO to NRE transfer.In fact, during the pendency of the partition suit with respect to ancestral property of Late Nawab Jang, Hamid Ali Khan - defendant.1 - had alienated the property treating it as his own whereas it was obviously subject to the right of other co-shares.Thus, the decision cannot be taken to be an authority on a question which was not agitated.Fisher (1841) 10 LJ Ch 221 that if persons deal in such interests as undivided shares, they do so with the liability of having something assigned to them different from what they might originally possess.The following is the observation made with respect to the right of pre-emption in the aforesaid decision: "7.
As regards the question of the amount which is said to have been paid.68 acres 10 guntas in which he had only 14/104th share.LPA.104/1997 was filed which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court.The plaintiff is therefore justly entitled to demand that all the immovable property should be assigned to her and that no portion of the immovable property should be claimed by defendants 1.A co-parcener cannot alienate without consent of other co- parceners in Banaras School of Mitakshara Law.Till the date of the decree, it was contended by Anantdeo that he was in possession of portion of the suit land and the remaining portion was in possession of Malatibai, in view of the sale deed in her favour.Their premier position is, in Islam, always subject to the claims of near relations mentioned as the Koranic heirs.




[L_RANDNUM-10-999]