V. N. SARIN versus MAJOR AJIT KUMAR POPLAI

Allotment of property to a coparcener on partition of a Hindu undivided family does not amount to acquisition by transfer within the meaning of section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and therefore does not bar eviction application by the coparcener.

Parties: Appellant: V. N. Sarin; Respondent No. 1: Major Ajit Kumar Poplai; Respondent No. 2: B. S. Poplai
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 09 August 1965
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Supreme Court, Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab High Court at Delhi, Second Appeal From Order No. 235/d of 1963
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Partition Under Hindu Law, Delhi Rent Control Act, Meaning of 'transfer' in Eviction Statutes

Property Law Landlord Tenant Law Partition Under Hindu Law Delhi Rent Control Act Meaning of 'transfer' in Eviction Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

V. N. Sarin

Appellant

Major Ajit Kumar Poplai

Respondent No. 1

B. S. Poplai

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court, Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab High Court at Delhi, Second Appeal From Order No. 235/d of 1963

Legal Issues

1 Whether allotment of share on partition of Hindu undivided family is 'acquisition by transfer' within s. 14(6) of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Appellant to vacate suit premises within three months from date of decision.
Respondent No. 1 agreed not to execute decree for eviction during the said period.