#civilsuit

[soolegal]

𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐒𝐮𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐥.

For further information, refer to this Article By Adv. Kishan Dutt Kalaskar.

[harperblue5]

CONOR MCGREGO! *IRELAND* #FIGHTER #CONORMCGREGOR #IRELAND #MMAFIGHTER #D...

CONOR MCGREGO! *IRELAND* #FIGHTER #CONORMCGREGOR #IRELAND #MMAFIGHTER #DUBLIN #CIVILSUIT #CELEBRITY

[seemabhatnagar]

‘How the Lucknow High Court Upheld the Son’s Claim in a Joint Family Property Dispute: A Landmark Judgement for Inheritance Law’

Saurabh Gupta v. Smt. Archana Gupta & 2 others

FAFO 321/2023

Before Lucknow High Court

Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal J

Order

The Court allowed the Injunction application of the appellant restraining respondents from transferring the property in dispute during the pendency of the Civil Suit before Civil Judge Hardoi.

The Court observed that the Court below, while passing the order has not applied his mind despite being a prima facie case, and in such a case protection is necessary against further transferring the property or changing the nature of same, if same is not protected, there are chances the property may be transferred or nature of property may be changed in that case even if the appellant's suit is decreed, then he will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

Background

Present appeal has been filed against the order passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Hardoi on July25, 2023 in Civil Suit ‘Saurabh Gupta vs Smt. Archna Gupta and others’.

The temporary injunction application was filed by the appellant from restraining the respondent No.1 to transfer the same was rejected.

Facts:

Appellant-Sourabh Gupta filed a Civil Suit for a declaration that he is the co-sharer of 1/4th part of the property in dispute as the property belongs to joint family property because it was purchased by the father of the appellant in the name of his wife Smt Archana Gupta -the respondent no.1.

Respondent no.1 is the house maker and did not have any independent source of income.

The appellant's father purchased the property in dispute from Ram Ratan Gupta  on 20.10.86.

The appellant had made construction over that plot, and thereafter, the entire family has been running a business therein, and this complex is also known as R.C. Complex.

In the written statement, respondents have stated that the aforesaid property has been gifted by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2.

Submission of the Counsel of the Appellant

Respondent No.1-Archana Gupta is a homemaker and did not have any independent income, and his father purchased the property in dispute in the name of respondent no.1 (wife), therefore property belongs to the joint family property and not an individual property of the respondent.

Appellant and Respondent no.2, have been jointly running a business on the property.

In the gift deed, respondent no.1 admitted that she is homemaker.

Had she been a working woman she would not have mentioned herself as a homemaker.

Case for granting injunction has not considered by the Court below.

Being joint family property, the appellant is entitled to 1/4 share in the property in dispute, therefore his right should be protected by restraining the respondents from creating any 3rd party's right

Submission of the Counsel of the Respondents

The application u/order 39Rule 1 & 2 is not maintainable as no final relief was claimed in the plaint, which is in nature of permanent injunction.

Observation of the Court

The father of the appellant & husband of Respondent No.1 had purchased the property in the dispute.

There is nothing on record to show that respondent had any independent source of income.

Once a property is purchased by a Hindu husband in the name of his wife, who is homemaker, then the property will be deemed to be purchased by the husband himself from his source unless the contrary is proved.

An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. is maintainable for the protection of property, If the Court finds protection of the subject matter is necessary, and if protection is not granted, the same may result in irreparable loss to the complainant.

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, Section 29(b)(iii) prescribes that if the husband purchased the property in the name of his wife or children, then the same will not be said to be Benami property but will be deemed to be purchased by the husband out of his source.

Grant of a temporary injunction is governed by three basic principles, i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, which must be considered in a proper perspective in the facts and circumstances of the particular case. (Zenith Metaplast Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharastra and others; 2009 (10) SCC 388)

The appellant is claiming the declaration of only 1⁄4th share in the property in dispute on the ground that the property belongs to a joint Hindu family.

This Court under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act may presume the existence of fact that the property purchased by Hindu husband in the name of his spouse, will be the property of family, because in common course of natural event Hindu husband purchases a property in the name of his wife, who is homemaker and does not have any source of income for the benefit of family.

The property is joint Hindu family property and protection of property from transferring to a third party is necessary.

Seema Bhatnagar

[mishrasatty7]

#illegaltermination #civilsuit #law #jurisdiction #servicelawyers #legal #labourcourt #legaladvisor #updates https://www.instagram.com/p/CpJwPVjv0Fv/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[mvkeel]

How to file a Civil Suit in India?

[ohbrownone]

Shanquella Robinson's Family Seeks Justice 👨‍⚖️💔: CivilSuit Against Her ...

[voiceof4-podcast]

Redemption! Kanye' West! Celebrity legal troubles! Shopping! Pet Peeves and more!

[kennichi8]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kenichi Legal Consultant (@kenichi_legal)

At 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐢 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭. our friendly and dedicated experts can help you with the following:

Conveyancing ✔️ Residential & Commercial Law ✔️ Family Law ✔️ Employment Law ✔️ Immigration law ✔️ Wills & Probate ✔️ Personal Injury ✔️

Contact- 📞 7985886348, 9118366496

[dougiepowerz]

WTF U mean “ain’t got it? I "got it” when you needed it tho! So where do we go from here? Bet I’d be the villain if I turned up the heat tho, right? - - - - #nothingpersonal #itsjustbusiness #debt #loan #borrow #loansharking #payback #dougpowerz #lending #lawsuit #civilsuit #garnish #broke #loser #taxtime #incometax #business #childsupport #family #credit #thief #square #conartist #hustla #liar #bum

[vegannewsnow]

Fired For Being Vegan!?!

Fired For Being Vegan!?!

Curtis Anthony A.K.A Sk1nnyveg4n on Facebook and Youtube was allegedly fired by his former employer for being vegan! In this video we interview him and talk about why this case is important to vegans everywhere. Curtis made his own video about his life, activism and firing here:

https://www.facebook.com/Sk1nnyveg4n/

On his page you…

[magic-city-lawyer]

Don’t hire a lawyer!

#lawyer #attorney #hiringalawyer #smallclaims #countycourt #miami #florida #lawsuit #sue #civilsuit #prose #representation #principal #legal #advice #damages

https://youtu.be/ZXuogQ5K4tU

[mishrasatty7]

Any guess? What #legal #case would have been filed by #colonel here before #districtjudge #civilsuit #lawyers #advocates #legalquiz #legaladviceonline #legalseva (at Zirakpur) https://www.instagram.com/p/CKQ2R7OpwAV/?igshid=137zumkm7hn9n

[kennichi8]

[west-trinadian]

Tell friends to text JUSTICE to 62227 to demand that the DOJ address the travesties of this tragedy by filing a civil rights violation against Zimmerman. *Standard texting rates apply*

[mishrasatty7]

#wrongfultermination #alibaba #civilsuit #lawyer #india #servicelaw #gurugram #legaladvice #legalseva (at Zirakpur) https://www.instagram.com/p/CDIMOjRJORd/?igshid=fcfx97a3890u