Search results
Brief summary: The defendant-Respondent 1, Ram Parkash as Karta of Joint Hindu family executed an agreement to sell the suit property bearing M.C.K No. 238/9, in Mohalla Qanungaon at Kaithal for a consideration of Rs 21,400 and received a sum of Rs 5000 as earnest money.
Jun 16, 2022 · Sunil Kumar vs Ram Prakash case held that a coparcener does not have the right to get a permanent injunction against the Karta to prevent him from alienating joint family property. FACTS: Ram Prakash signed into an arrangement with Jai Bhagwan to sell a dwelling property that was represented as a self-acquired property of Ram Prakash.
Sunil Kumar v. Ram Parkash (1988) 2 SCC 77 Family Law-II PSDA Submitted by KANISHKA Enrollment No-Semester-Section-B ##### Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies Introduction. − Alienation means transfer of property, such as gifts, sales and mortgages.
- (1)
Dec 24, 1999 · Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash ( 1988) 2 SCC 77.13. We have perused... Dhirendra Nath Verma And Other v.
Apr 18, 2024 · Sunil Kumar v. Ram Parkash (1988) 2 SCC 77. Judge: Ray, Jagannatha Shetty. Facts. On February 1978, Ram Parkash entered into an agreement for sale of certain house property in favour of Jai Bhagwan. Property was described as self acquired property of Ram Prakash. Later, Ram Prakash did not execute the sale deed though called upon to ...
Sushil Kumar & Anr vs Ram Prakash & Ors on 13 January, 1988. Warning on Translation. Get this document in PDF. Print it on a file/printer. Download Court Copy. Select the following parts of the judgment. Issues. Respondent's Arguments. Analysis of the law.
sunil kumar vs. ram parkash - supreme court of india (from: punjab & haryana) - january 13, 1988
