IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
|
|
- Ashley Rogers
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2133/2006 C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2132/2006 IN R.S.A. NO.2133/2006 BETWEEN: 1. Sri Venkateshappa Aged about 50 years 2. Sri Ramappa Aged about 45 years 3. Sri Venkataswamy Aged about 40 years 4. Sri Chikkappaiah Aged about 35 years All are sons of late Sanjeevappa Kannampalli, Julapalya Bagepalli Taluk Appellants (By Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, Adv.,)
2 2 AND : 1. Sri Narayanappa S/o Peddavenkatarayappa Aged 45 years R/o Vasappanahalli Julapalya, Mittemari Hobli Bagepalli Taluk Sri A.N. Nanjundappa S/o Doddamathatta Narayanappa Aged 65 years R/o Kannampalli Mittemari Hobli Bagepalli Taluk Sri Venkatarayappa S/o Sanjeevappa Aged 50 years R/o Kannampalli Mittemari Hobli Bagepalli Taluk Respondents (By Sri M.V. Sheshachala, Adv., for R1 & R2) This RSA is filed under Section 100 of CPC., against the judgment and decree dated passed in R.A.No.155/2001 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chickballapur allowing the Appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated passed in O.S.No.354/1995 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Bagepalli.
3 3 IN R.S.A. NO.2132/2006 BETWEEN: 1. Sri Venkateshappa Aged about 50 years 2. Sri Ramappa Aged about 45 years 3. Sri Venkataswamy Aged about 40 years 4. Sri Chikkappaiah Aged about 35 years All are sons of late Sanjeevappa Kannampalli, Julapalya Bagepalli Taluk...Appellants (By Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, Adv.,) AND : 1. Sri Narayanappa S/o Peddavenkatarayappa Aged 45 years R/o Vasappanahalli Julapalya, Mittemari Hobli Bagepalli Taluk. 2. Sri A.N. Nanjundappa S/o Doddamathatta Narayanappa Aged 65 years R/o Kannampalli Mittemari Hobli Bagepalli Taluk.
4 4 3. Sri Venkatarayappa S/o Sanjeevappa Aged 50 years R/o Kannampalli Mittemari Hobli Bagepalli Taluk Respondents (By Sri M.V. Sheshachala, Adv., for R1 & R2) This RSA is filed under Section 100 of CPC., against the judgment and decree dated passed in R.A.No.156/2001 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chickballapur allowing the Appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated passed in O.S.No.54/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Bagepalli. These RSAs coming on for hearing this day, the Court delivered the following : J U D G M E N T Sri Dadamgatta Narayanappa was the absolute owner of number of properties including Sy.No.9/2 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas and Sy.No.9/9 measuring 25 guntas situated at Kannampalli village. After his death, one of his sons viz., A.N. Nanjundappa sold the land bearing Sy.No.9/2 to an extent of 2 acres 6 guntas situated at Kannampali village in
5 5 favour of propositus of appellants viz., Sanjeevappa s/o Vemanna on as per Ex.P1. Whereas very A.N. Nanjundappa sold Sy.No.9/9 of Kannampalli village measuring 25 guntas in favour of Narayanappa s/o Venkatarayappa (respondent No.1 herein). There was no dispute till the year Sanjeevappa (propositus of the appellants herein) filed O.S. No.354/1995 against his vendor A.N. Nanjundappa and Narayanappa (respondents herein) for declaration that he is the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.9/9 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas situated at Kannampalli village and that the sale deed dated (Ex.P1) executed in his favour by A.N. Nanjundappa be rectified by substituting Sy.No.9/9 in place of Sy.No.9/2. Consequential reliefs are also sought for. Whereas the Respondent No.1 herein viz., Narayanappa s/o Peddavenkatarayappa filed O.S. No.54/99 for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.No.9/9 to an extent of 25 guntas and for
6 6 injunction in respect of the said property. Both the suits were clubbed together and decided together. The trial Court decreed O.S. No.354/1995 filed by Sanjeevappa and dismissed O.S. No.54/1999 filed by Narayanappa (Respondent No.1 herein). Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, Respondent No.1 herein viz., Narayanappa filed R.A. No.155/2001 and R.A. No.156/2001 before the Fast Track Court, Chikballapur. Both the appeals were allowed and consequently the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court is set aside. The suit filed by Sanjeevappa i.e. O.S. No.354/95 came to be dismissed by the first appellate court and the suit filed by Narayanappa i.e. O.S. No.54/99 came to be decreed by the first appellate Court. Questioning the said Judgment and Decree, these appeals are filed by sons of Sanjeevappa. 2. The case of Sanjeevappa is that he was an illiterate and a bonded labourer; though the land sold in his favour
7 7 was Sy.No.9/9, his venodor (who was the bond writer by profession) has erroneously shown the survey number as 9/2; that the original sale deed remained with the vendor viz., A.N. Nanjundappa (respondent No.2 herein) and the same was not handed over to the purchaser viz., Sanjeevappa; since the respondents herein did not object to the possession and enjoyment of the property by Sanjeevappa, he did not file suit for about 21 years; when respondents started interfering with the peaceful possession of the property by Sanjeevappa, he came to know that survey number is wrongly mentioned in the sale deed Ex.P1. Thus he filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of Sy.No.9/9 and for rectification of survey number as Sy.No.9/9 in place of Sy.No.9/2 in the sale deed Ex.P1. The case of Respondent No.2 herein is that Sanjeevappa is the purchaser of the property bearing Sy.No.9/2 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas and he has not purchased the property bearing Sy.No.9/9; that the
8 8 boundaries mentioned in the sale deed Ex.P1 tally with the boundaries of the property in actual possession of Sanjeevappa; that Respondent No.2 herein viz., Narayanappa purchased the property bearing Sy.No.9/9 to an extent of 25 guntas and the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed Ex.D1 in respect of Sy.No.9/9 tally with the area possessed by respondent No.2; that the suit filed by Sanjeevappa is barred by time inasmuch as the suit could not have been filed after the period of 21 years. On these and among other grounds, he prayed for dismissal of O.S. No.54/ At the time of admission of this appeal, the following question of law was raised: Whether the common judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A. Nos.155/2001 and 156/2001 is perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the documentary evidence available on record justifying reversal
9 9 of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.354/95 and also in O.S. NO.54/99? 4. Sri Balakrishna Shastry, learned advocate for the appellants submits that fraud is played on the part of the appellants by Respondent No.2 herein taking undue advantage of illiteracy of appellants father; even the original sale deed was not handed over in favour of Sanjeevappa, the propositus of appellants; the respondents had taken the advantage of the concession given by the appellants to form a road in the middle of his land; that Respondent No.2 never owned property bearing Sy.No.9/2; that survey number is wrongly mentioned. Hence the first appellate Court is not justified in dismissing O.S. No.354/95 on the ground of delay and laches as well as on merits. Sri Sheshachala, learned advocate for respondents 1 and 2 opposes the appeal by contending that the first appellate Court is justified in not granting the prayer of the
10 10 propositus of the appellants as he had come before the Court by filing O.S. No.354/95 after the lapse of about 21 years from the date of the sale deed. Since the boundaries mentioned in Ex.D1 and Ex.P1 tally with the boundaries of the properties in actual possession of the parties and as the boundaries are specific, no interference is called for. 5. It is not in dispute that Ex.P1 was executed in favour of father of the appellants by Respondent No.2 herein as back as on According to the appellants herein, who are the legal representatives of the original vendee, they are the owners of the property bearing Sy.No.9/9 and as the sale deed mentions wrong survey number, the same should be rectified and consequently they should be declared as owners of Sy.No.9/9. Admittedly, the father of the appellants herein viz., Sanjeevappa filed the suit for rectification of the sale deed after 21 years of the sale deed executed in his favour. The case of Sanjeevappa (propositus of the appellants)
11 11 completely rests on the prayer of the rectification of the sale deed. If the sale deed is rectified, then the appellants are bound to succeed. Hence the entire matter hinges round whether the rectification can be permitted after 21 years. There is no specific period of limitation fixed for filing the suit for rectification. Thus the residuary Article- 113 is applicable. Hence, Mr. Sanjeevappa ought to have filed suit within three years from the date of the sale deed. From the date of the sale deed itself, the time starts to run for filing the suit. Since such a suit is not filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the first appellate Court is justified in dismissing O.S. No.354/94 as barred by time. Moreover Sanjeevappa himself has admitted in his evidence that he got the entries changed in his name within one month from the date of execution of the sale deed in respect of Sy.No.9/2 and the original sale deed was handed over in his favour after one month from the date of the sale deed. He further admits that he has acquired the property
12 12 25 years prior to the date of his deposition. However he tried to withdrew his earlier admission before the Court by further deposing that the original sale deed is still with respondent No.2 herein. Be that as it may, the original sale deed is not produced before this Court. No action is taken by Sanjeevappa to get the original sale deed in his favour. If really the same was possessed by Respondent No.2 herein who is the vendor of the property he would not have waited for 25 years for the same. Even according to Sanjeevappa, he got his name entered in the revenue records within one month from the date of the sale deed. This clearly goes to show that Sanjeevappa knowing fully well about the sale deed executed in his favour, got his name entered in the revenue records based on the sale deed. Inspite of the same, he did not choose to file suit within the period of limitation for rectification of sale deed.
13 13 6. It is not in dispute that the 2 nd respondent is the vendor of the property. He executed the sale deed Ex.P1 in favour of Sanjeevappa to an extent of 2 acres 6 guntas and so also he executed the sale deed in favour of Respondent No.1 as per Ex.D1. The sale deed executed in favour of Sanjeevappa was dated , whereas sale deed executed in favour of Respondent No.1 is dated The sale deed Ex.P1 executed in favour of Sanjeevappa i.e. the propositus of the appellants herein clearly reveals that northern boundary has kaluve i.e. canal and the southern boundary has road. For the purpose of this case, we are not concerned with the eastern and western boundaries. According to Sanjeevappa, the road was shifted to the middle of the property by his consent for the benefit of the villagers at large and that he was paid compensation for the same. But there is nothing on record to show that the portion of his property is acquired at any point of time by the Government and he
14 14 was paid compensation. Thus the first appellate Court is justified in concluding that there is nothing on record to show that the road is shifted from the end of the southern portion of the appellants property to the middle of the property. 7. It is curious to note that plaint in O.S. No.354/95 was amended by order dated by inserting sketch- B to the main plaint. Sanjeevappa had shown the road on the southern boundary prior to the amendment. However, he did not seek amendment till the filing of the written statement by the defendant. After filing of the written statement, Sanjeevappa got the plaint immediately amended and shown the road towards middle of the property. Thus it is clear that while pleading fraud, the plaintiff was not specific and he was not certain with regard to allegations of fraud. The contention of Sri Balakrishna Shastry that there was no area available for selling in favour of Respondent No.1 herein inasmuch as the entire
15 15 area was sold in favour of the propositus of the appellants also cannot be accepted. According to him, if really same land remains with the vendor, he would not have missed to mention so in the sale deed Ex.P1. When the southern portion of the boundary of the property sold in favour of Sanjeevappa is a road, nobody can expect the vendor to show that the remaining portion of his property still lies after the road. It is highly imaginary that the owner would mention that after the southern boundary of his land i.e. after the road, part of his land is retained. 8. If really road were to be shifted from southern portion of the property to the middle portion of the property, then the owners of the western and eastern portions of the property also should have been affected by such road. There is nothing on record in that regard. In the sale deed Ex.P1, the properties sold in favour of Sanjeevappa is one piece of land. However, according to the amended plaint, land has become two pieces and
16 16 therefore he continues to be the owner of another portion of the land also. It is not the case of Sanjeevappa that on account of any natural calamities or changes in the land, the road is shifted to the middle portion of the property. Having regard to such material on record, the first appellate Court is justified in negativing contention of the appellants. In my considered opinion, the first appellate Court is justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellants have not proved their case and on the other hand Respondent No.2 herein has proved his case. Documentary evidence available on record justifies the reversal of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The question of law raised is answered accordingly. Accordingly, the appeals fail and the same stand dismissed. Gss/nk- Sd/- JUDGE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 726 of 2014]
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3333 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 726 of 2014] NON-REPORTABLE Kedar Nath Kohli (Dead) by LRs... Appellants Versus Baldev
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR. ITA No.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR ITA No.1012 OF 2008 BETWEEN; Shri.C.N.Anantharam
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 5586 OF 2013 (HRC) BETWEEN : SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O SRI
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + Date of Decision: versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
$~12. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 07.12.2015 % RSA 162/2015 VINOD KUMAR JAIN & ORS... Appellant Through: Mr. S.C.Singhal, Advocate versus VINOD SRIVASTAVA & ORS... Respondent
More informationCRP NO. 363/2009. Sri Prasanta Kumar Prasanta Bose, S/o Late Nepal Chandra Bose, Residents of Central Board, Silchar Town,
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP NO. 363/2009 Sri Prasanta Kumar Bose @ Prasanta Bose, S/o Late Nepal Chandra Bose, Residents of Central Board,
More informationWP(C) No of 2010
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) WP(C) No. 5887 of 2010 1. Md. Rafique Ahmed. 2. Md. Abdul Aziz. 3. Md. Niazuddin Ahmed. 4. Md. Sarifuddin Ahmed.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN. COLONIAL HOMES AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LIMITED Formerly called BALMAIN PARK LIMITED AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL No. 47 OF 2007 BETWEEN COLONIAL HOMES AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LIMITED Formerly called BALMAIN PARK LIMITED AND APPELLANT KASSINATH
More informationARIZONA TAX COURT TX /18/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG
HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG CLERK OF THE COURT L. Slaughter Deputy FILED: CAMELBACK ESPLANADE ASSOCIATION, THE JIM L WRIGHT v. MARICOPA COUNTY JERRY A FRIES PAUL J MOONEY PAUL MOORE UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
More informationLESLIE EMMANUEL (Personal Representative of Leopold Allan Emmanuel, deceased) LENNARD EMMANUEL and ACE ENGINEERING LIMITED
COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA DOMHCV2009/0281 BETWEEN: LESLIE EMMANUEL (Personal Representative of Leopold Allan Emmanuel, deceased) LENNARD EMMANUEL and ACE ENGINEERING LIMITED ANTHONY LEBLANC Claimant Defendants
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No.2925/2011 1. Sri Suren Singha, S/o. Sri Mukta Singha. 2. Smti. Promila Devi, W/o. Sri Mukta
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 03-462 CABLE PREJEAN VERSUS RIVER RANCH, LLC ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20012534 HONORABLE DURWOOD
More informationOPINION. No CV. Tomas ZUNIGA and Berlinda A. Zuniga, Appellants. Margaret L. VELASQUEZ, Appellee
OPINION No. Tomas ZUNIGA and Berlinda A. Zuniga, Appellants v. Margaret L. VELASQUEZ, Appellee From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2005-CI-16979 Honorable David A.
More informationCase 8:13-bk MGW Doc 391 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 12
Case 8:13-bk-10798-MGW Doc 391 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION www.flmb.uscourts.gov In re: 2408 W. Kennedy, LLC, Case No. 8:13-bk-10798-MGW
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + RSA No. 228/2017. % 20 th September, Versus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No. 228/2017 % 20 th September, 2017 ELCEE PLASTIC INDUSTRIES & ORS.... Appellants Through: Mr. A.K.Singla, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sudhir Sukhija, Mr. Shivam
More informationFreedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) Decision notice
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) Decision notice Date: 8 March 2016 Public Authority: Address: The Land Registry Trafalgar House 1 Bedford Park Croydon
More informationPRESENT: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, and Kinser, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice
PRESENT: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, and Kinser, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice LINDA H. WOHLFORD OPINION BY v. Record No. 990320 SENIOR JUSTICE HENRY H. WHITING January 14, 2000 GLADYS
More informationRengiil v. Debkar Clan, 16 ROP 185 (2009) ALBERTA RENGIIL, Appellant, DEBKAR CLAN, Appellee/Appellant,
ALBERTA RENGIIL, Appellant, v. DEBKAR CLAN, Appellee/Appellant, v. AIRAI STATE PUBLIC LANDS AUTHORITY and JONATHAN KOSHIBA, Appellees. Decided: June 17, 2009 Counsel for Rengiil: Ernestine Rengiil Counsel
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT Date of Judgment: RC.REV. 264/2011 & CM No.13063/2011 (for stay)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT Date of Judgment: 19.3.2012 RC.REV. 264/2011 & CM No.13063/2011 (for stay) RAKESH SUD... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sachdeva,
More informationAPPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF McDONALD COUNTY. Honorable John R. LePage, Associate Circuit Judge
RUSSELL VAN ELK, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. DARLENE L. URBANEK, as Trustee of the DARLENE L. URBANEK TRUST, Dated May 2, 2005, and Nos. SD 29364 & SD29412 DARLENE L. URBANEK, Individually, Opinion
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 18, 2009 MICHAEL D. DELORE, ET AL.
PRESENT: All the Justices HENRY ANDERSON, JR., ET AL. v. Record No. 082416 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 18, 2009 MICHAEL D. DELORE, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY
More information(Redacted) Zippserv Sample. FINAL REPORT ON TITLE 03 March, Mr. Abhishek Dutta Bengaluru. Dear Abhishek Dutta
FINAL REPORT ON TITLE 03 March, 2017 Mr. Abhishek Dutta Bengaluru Dear Abhishek Dutta Subject: Legal opinion in respect of the property bearing (1) Sy. No.33/1, measuring 02 Acres 03 Guntas, (2) Sy. No.33/2,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed February 23, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Michael R.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-087 / 10-0949 Filed February 23, 2011 MARGARET ELLIOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. WAYNE JASPER, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 05/15/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA ANUHCVAP2009/0015 BETWEEN: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AUSTIN MARTIN, Executor of the Estate of MARY EDITH DOREEN GRASON, deceased suing herein by his Attorney
More informationGILMORE V. NORTH AMERICAN LAND. CO. ET AL. [Pet. C. C. 460.] 1 Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania. Oct. Term, 1817.
GILMORE V. NORTH AMERICAN LAND. CO. ET AL. Case No. 5,448. [Pet. C. C. 460.] 1 Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania. Oct. Term, 1817. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES INTENT PRESUMPTION PURCHASER UNDER EXECUTION AGAINST
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. BENJORAY, INC., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, ACADEMY HOUSE CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner,
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC04-815 LOWER CASE NUMBER: 3D03-2440 THOMAS KRAMER, Petitioner, v. VERENA VON MITSCHKE-COLLANDE and CLAUDIA MILLER-OTTO, in their capacity as the HEIRS
More informationDispute Resolution Services
Dispute Resolution Services Page: 1 Residential Tenancy Branch Office of Housing and Construction Standards DECISION Dispute Codes CNC, FF Introduction This hearing dealt with the tenant s application
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY
[Cite as Watson v. Neff, 2009-Ohio-2062.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY Jeffrey S. Watson, Trustee, : : Plaintiff-Appellant, : : Case No. 08CA12 v. : : DECISION
More informationRUPERT CORNELIUS LAYNE GLADYS ELIZABETH LAYNE MATTHEW DENNIE DEXTER DESHONG. 2009: March 9 th April 28 th July 29 th
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 38 OF 2007 BETWEEN: RUPERT CORNELIUS LAYNE v GLADYS ELIZABETH LAYNE Petitioner
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 Date of decision: 10th January, RFA No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 Date of decision: 10th January, 2014. RFA No.350/2013 LALIT MADHAN.. Appellant Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DANIEL WESNER, d/b/a FISH TALES, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D16-4646
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FRANK J. NOA, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 13, 2005 v No. 255310 Otsego Circuit Court AGATHA C. NOA, ESTATE OF MICHAEL J. LC No. 03-010202-CH NOA and M&M ENTERPRIZES,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In re Estate of ROBERT R. WILLIAMS. J. BRUCE WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 6, 2005 v No. 262203 Kalamazoo Probate Court Estate of ROBERT R. WILLIAMS,
More informationCircuit Court for Montgomery County Case No v UNREPORTED
Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 408212v UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1684 September Term, 2016 VICTOR NJUKI v. DIANE S. ROSENBERG, et al., Substitute Trustees
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WILLIAM KULINSKI, RONALD KULINSKI, and RUSSELL KULINSKI, UNPUBLISHED December 9, 2014 Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 318091 Lenawee Circuit Court ILENE KULINSKI, LC No.
More informationJAMES M. RAMSEY, JR., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL APRIL 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS
PRESENT: All the Justices JAMES M. RAMSEY, JR., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 140929 JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL APRIL 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 15.02.2016. + RC.REV. 345/2015 & C.M. Nos.12498/2015 & 23221/2015 MADAN MOHAN SINGH... Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.2846 OF 2017 VERSUS WITH
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2846 OF 2017 Bijender & Ors..Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Haryana & Anr. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2847-2848,
More informationWHEATHER RENTING OF PROPERTY IS SERVICE AND THUS LIABLE TO SERVICE TAX?
1 WHEATHER RENTING OF PROPERTY IS SERVICE AND THUS LIABLE TO SERVICE TAX? By: MUKUL GUPTA, Tax Advocate R-13/24, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Tel :+91120-2820380, 2821407 Mobile: +919811023739 e-mail: mukuladv@hotmail.com
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 30, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-597 Lower Tribunal No. 10-54870 Pierre Philippe,
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + RFA No.544/2018. % 17 th July, versus. Through: CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.544/2018 % 17 th July, 2018 NAVIN CHANDER ANAND Through:... Appellant Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Dalip Mehra, Advocate. versus UNION BANK
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON July 21, 2009 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON July 21, 2009 Session BENTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ET AL. v. VERN FRANKLIN CHUMNEY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Benton County No. 7CCV-1149 Charles
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT. Date of Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT Date of Judgment: 25.01.2012 CM(M) Nos. 1771-72/2005 & CM Nos.4748/2008 & 10925/2009 SARDAR DALIP SINGH LOYAL & SONS Through Mr.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT J. WILLIAMS, KARLA WILLIAMS, MATTHEW GOODMAN, AMY GOODMAN, THOMAS FOOT, JACQUELINE FOOT, WILLIAM BIGELOW, MARGO BIGELOW, CARL QUALMANN, MARGE QUALMANN, CALVIN
More informationConcession Contracts in Romania
Concession Contracts in Romania THE LEGAL REGIME OF NEWLY CREATED ASSETS IN THE CARRYING OUT OF CONCESSION CONTRACTS In Romania, a country whose Constitution specifies that public assets may be exploited
More informationLONDON LIFE INSURANCE CO. ASSESSOR OF AREA 9 -- VANCOUVER. Supreme Court of British Columbia (A872713) Vancouver Registry
The following version is for informational purposes only, for the official version see: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/ for Stated Cases see also: http://www.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/ for PAAB Decisions SC
More informationORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3633 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4361 OF 2010
1 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3633 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4361 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax 25, C/11, Room
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC10-90 / SC10-91 (Consolidated) (Lower Tribunal Case No. s 3D08-944, )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-90 / SC10-91 (Consolidated) (Lower Tribunal Case No. s 3D08-944, 03-14195) JOEL W. ROBBINS (Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser); IAN YORTY (Miami-Dade County
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN BOUNDARY ASSOCIATION, INC. January 13, 2006
PRESENT: All the Justices RALPH WHITE, ET AL. v. Record No. 050417 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN BOUNDARY ASSOCIATION, INC. January 13, 2006 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG
More informationConstruing conveyancing documents a major change in the Court s approach
Construing conveyancing documents a major change in the Court s approach The recent Court of Appeal decision in Cherry Tree Investments Limited v Landmain Limited [2012] EWCA Civ 736 concerns the construction
More informationTHE HOUSE IS MINE, SAYS THE DIVORCE ORDER. NOT SO, ARGUES EX-SPOUSE S CREDITOR: WHEN IS THE SPOUSE S TITLE UNASSAILABLE?
THE HOUSE IS MINE, SAYS THE DIVORCE ORDER. NOT SO, ARGUES EX-SPOUSE S CREDITOR: WHEN IS THE SPOUSE S TITLE UNASSAILABLE? Fischer v Ubomi Ushishi Trading and Others (1085/2017) [2018] ZASCA 154 (19 November
More informationAGREEMENT FOR SALE (APARTMENT IN CO-OP. SOCIETY)
AGREEMENT FOR SALE (APARTMENT IN CO-OP. SOCIETY) THIS AGREEMENT is made at (City) on the day of [Year] Between [Name/s], aged about years, son of, residing at, hereinafter called "The Vendor" (which expression
More informationP.F. WOOD, APPELLANT, V. C. MANDRILLA, RESPONDENT. SAC. NO SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court of California,Department Two. 167 Cal. 607 {Cal. 1914) WOOD V. MANDRILLA P.F. WOOD, APPELLANT, V. C. MANDRILLA, RESPONDENT. SAC. NO. 2089. SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA,DEPARTMENT TWO. APRIL
More informationCertiorari not Applied for COUNSEL
1 SANDOVAL COUNTY BD. OF COMM'RS V. RUIZ, 1995-NMCA-023, 119 N.M. 586, 893 P.2d 482 (Ct. App. 1995) SANDOVAL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Plaintiff, vs. BEN RUIZ and MARGARET RUIZ, his wife, Defendants-Appellees,
More informationKILLARNEY MALL PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD J U D G M E N T
NOT REPORTABLE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 33005/2010 DATE: 28/09/2010 In the matter between:- KILLARNEY MALL PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD Applicant And MEDITERRANEAN KITCHEN CC t/a ANAT AND
More informationREGISTRATION ACT, 1908
REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 INTRODUCTION Object of the Act: 1. To ensure information about all deals concerning land so that correct land records could be maintained. 2. To proper recording of transactions
More informationRIGHTS OF SECURED CREDITOR UNDER THE SECURITISATION ACT AGAINST TENANTED SECURED ASSET
RIGHTS OF SECURED CREDITOR UNDER THE SECURITISATION ACT AGAINST TENANTED SECURED ASSET Supreme Court Judgment on Harsh Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd - A Shot In
More informationCOUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET NO. COAH THE HILLS DEVELOPMENT CO., ) Plaintiff ) v. ) TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS, ) Defendant, )
COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET NO. COAH 87-9 THE HILLS DEVELOPMENT CO., ) Plaintiff ) v. ) TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS, ) Defendant, ) Civil Action OPINION This matter was brought to Council on Affordable
More informationNo July 27, P.2d 939
Printed on: 10/20/01 Page # 1 111 Nev. 998, 998 (1995) Schwartz v. State, Dep't of Transp. MARTIN J. SCHWARTZ and PHYLLIS R. SCHWARTZ, Trustees of the MARTIN J. SCHWARTZ and PHYLLIS R. SCHWARTZ Revocable
More informationS75A and Disruptive Behaviour Management Unit (DBMU) Fact Sheet
S75A and Disruptive Behaviour Management Unit (DBMU) Fact Sheet The Department of Housing s Disruptive Behaviour Management Policy In May 2011 the Western Australian Government's Disruptive Behaviour Management
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA KATHLEEN GREEN and LEE ANN MOODY, v. Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationAPPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2014-NMCA-097 Filing Date: July 22, 2014 Docket No. 32,310 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a THE BANK OF NEW YORK, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL
More informationIN RE MOTION TO RESCIND ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON BOROUGH OF ALLENDALE'S ) AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBSTANTIVE CERTIFICATION ) OPINION COAH DOCKET #
IN RE MOTION TO RESCIND ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON BOROUGH OF ALLENDALE'S ) AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBSTANTIVE CERTIFICATION ) OPINION COAH DOCKET #06-1803 This matter comes before the New Jersey Council on Affordable
More informationCHAPTER 199 AGRICULTURAL LEASES (RELETTING) ACT
AGRICULTURAL LEASES (RELETTING) [CAP. 199. 1 CHAPTER 199 AGRICULTURAL LEASES (RELETTING) ACT To regulate the reletting of agricultural land and to provide for matters connected therewith and ancillary
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT WAYNE GOLDMAN, MARIANNE GOLDMAN and SEAN ACOSTA, Appellants, v. STEPHEN LUSTIG, Appellee. No. 4D16-1933 [January 24, 2018] CORRECTED OPINION
More informationNo February 26, P.2d Kermitt L. Waters, and James Leavitt, Las Vegas, for Appellants.
Printed on: 10/20/01 Page # 1 114 Nev. 137, 137 (1998) Argier v. Nevada Power Co. DAVID ARGIER, TOM ARGIER, NEVCAN DEVELOPMENT, LTD., and CANEV DEVELOPMENT, LTD., Appellants, v. NEVADA POWER COMPANY, a
More informationNO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996
NO. 95-519 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996 A.C. WARNACK, Trustee of the A.C. WARNACK TRUST; and KENNETH R. MCDONALD, v. Plaintiffs, Appellants and Cross-Respondents, THE CONEEN FAMILY
More informationPresent: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, and Kinser, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice
Present: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, and Kinser, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice JOSEPH B. SWEENEY v. Record No. 991810 OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER April 21, 2000 WEST GROUP, INC.
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida LEWIS, C. J. No. SC05-2045 S AND T BUILDERS, Petitioner, vs. GLOBE PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent. [November 16, 2006] We have for review the decision in S & T Builders v. Globe
More informationREDHA INSTITUTE SEMINAR SERIES
By Loh Chu Bian REDHA INSTITUTE SEMINAR SERIES Seminar on Malaysian Land Law: Recent Development & Controversies 1 2 CONTENTS Statutory provisions When does the time to deliver VP start running? Manner
More informationJackson County Courthouse 3rd Floor Civil Records 415 E. 12th Street RM 305 Kansas City, MO (816)
Western Jackson County (Kansas City, Grandview) (All cases where the property is located in Kansas City or Grandview should be filed in Western Jackson County, at the Kansas City (downtown) Courthouse.)
More informationBorowski v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Wis: Court of Appeals, 1st...
Page 1 of 5 JOHN BOROWSKI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal No. 2013AP537. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I. Filed: December 27, 2013. Before
More informationBLACKSTONE INVESTMENTS LLC
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CA 1163 BLACKSTONE INVESTMENTS LLC VERSUS GENE STROTHER AND NELL CURRY STROTHER Judgment Rendered Max 6 2011 I I
More informationNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS Code of Ethics Video Series. Article 4 and Related Case Interpretations
Article 4 and Related Case Interpretations Article 4 REALTORS shall not acquire an interest in or buy or present offers from themselves, any member of their immediate families, their firms or any member
More informationREPAIR AND REMEDY CASE INSTRUCTIONS
REPAIR AND REMEDY CASE INSTRUCTIONS There are generally four types of Landlord/Tenant issues that present themselves in justice court: 1) Evictions (see Texas Property Code, Chapter 24) 2) Illegal lockouts
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2013
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2013 Opinion filed September 25, 2013. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-2257 Lower Tribunal No.
More information7 A.2d 696 Page 1 63 R.I. 216, 7 A.2d 696 (Cite as: 63 R.I. 216, 7 A.2d 696)
7 A.2d 696 Page 1 (Cite as: ) Supreme Court of Rhode Island. STANTON et al. v. SULLIVAN et al. No. 1460. July 18, 1939. Case Certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties. Proceeding in
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 25, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 25, 2006 Session BILLY R. INMON v. BRETT HADLEY, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Jefferson County No. 19,964-IV & 19,965-I Ben W. Hooper,
More informationNO. COA Filed: 15 November Easements- servient tenant s impermissible interference with dominant tenant s use-- motion to dismiss
FRANK H. R. FALKSON, KENNETH COLLIER, FRANCIS CARTER, ALBERT G. FOLCHER, III, VICTOR VANCE, BURT MOODY, AND WATERWAY LANDING - POCOSIN FARMS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs, v. CLAYTON LAND CORPORATION,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 4, 2018
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 4, 2018 10/05/2018 HERBERT T. STAFFORD v. MATTHEW L. BRANAN Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sequatchie County No. 2482
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT LITTLE and BARBARA LITTLE, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants- Appellants, UNPUBLISHED March 23, 2006 v No. 257781 Oakland Circuit Court THOMAS TRIVAN, DARLENE TRIVAN,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE CLAIM: No. 275 of 2007 AND
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE 2007 CLAIM: No. 275 of 2007 BETWEEN: WARD MCGREGOR CLAIMANT AND WILLIAM NEAL AND ATTORNEY GENERAL (for the Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment DEFENDANT/ANCILLARY
More information2.2 As the builder and developer deals with immovable property, laws relating to the same are analysed and discussed first hereinafter.
INCOME TAX ISSUES IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS Chetan A. Karia Chartered Accountant 1. Introduction The issue of taxation of income from business of real estate development is refusing to settle. With the
More informationPresent: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J.
Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J. BARRY E. SEYMOUR v. Record No. 061216 OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS APRIL 20, 2007 CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, ET
More informationJason Pierce, personal representative of the Estate of Mary Clomer Pierce,
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 07CA1960 Larimer County District Court No. 07CV788 Honorable Jolene Carmen Blair, Judge Jason Pierce, personal representative of the Estate of Mary Clomer
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 43343 MARIAN G. HOKE, an individual, and MARIAN G. HOKE as trustee of THE HOKE FAMILY TRUST U/T/A dated February 19, 1997, v. Plaintiff-Respondent,
More informationEVICTIONS including Lockouts and Utility Shutoffs
EVICTIONS including Lockouts and Utility Shutoffs Every tenant has the legal right to remain in their rental housing unless and until the landlord follows the legal process for eviction. Generally speaking,
More informationMatter of DeJesus v New York City Hous. Auth NY Slip Op 31536(U) July 12, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Eileen
Matter of DeJesus v New York City Hous. Auth. 2013 NY Slip Op 31536(U) July 12, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 400618/2013 Judge: Eileen A. Rakower Republished from New York State Unified
More informationORLANDO CASTILLO BETWEEN: ORLANDO CASTILLO CLAIMANT RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2000 ACTION NO: 136 OF 2000 BETWEEN: BENNY S ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND ORLANDO CASTILLO CLAIMANT DEFENDANT AND ACTION NO. 162 OF 2000 BETWEEN: ORLANDO CASTILLO CLAIMANT
More informationBAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE January 11, 2008 JANET SIMMONS
PRESENT: All the Justices BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC OPINION BY v. Record No. 062715 JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE January 11, 2008 JANET SIMMONS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY James V. Lane, Judge
More informationEviction Lessor is Ending your Tenancy
As a tenant you have rights and responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (the Act). This fact sheet explains the law in Western Australia about ending a tenancy by eviction and incorporates
More informationCONFLICTING ELEMENTS
CONFLICTING ELEMENTS Order of importance of conflicting elements that determine land location: A. Unwritten rights. B. Senior right. C. Written intentions of Parties. D. Lines Marked and Run. E. Natural
More informationSALE DEED. SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT No., SECTOR, URBAN ESTATE PANCHKULA, MEASURING SQ.MTRS.
SALE DEED SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT No., SECTOR, URBAN ESTATE PANCHKULA, MEASURING SQ.MTRS. CONSIDERATION AMOUNT Rs. /- ALREADY PAID/EARNEST MONEY : Rs. /- BEFORE SUB-REGISTRAR : Rs. /-
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 PETER S. GRAF, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : CARA NOLLETTI, : : Appellee : No. 2008 MDA 2013 Appeal from the
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS E. RICHARD RANDOLPH and BETTY J. RANDOLPH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, FOR PUBLICATION October 3, 2006 9:00 a.m. v No. 259943 Newaygo Circuit Court CLARENCE E. REISIG, MONICA
More informationADDRESSES MUST BE CORRECT
An Unlawful Detainer actions is a Special Summary Proceeding, lawsuit that entitles the landlord to statutory priority over other civil cases. Your action still falls in this class as long as procession
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PAUL MARINO and LINDA MARINO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED June 19, 2001 v No. 215764 Wayne Circuit Court GRAYHAVEN ESTATES LTD., LLC, LC No. 98-813922-CH GRAYHAVEN-LENOX
More informationORDER VACATED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division IV Opinion by CHIEF JUDGE DAVIDSON Plank* and Ney*, JJ., concur. Announced November 8, 2012
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 11CA2132 Board of Assessment Appeals No. 57591 James Fifield and Betsy Fifield, Petitioners Appellants, v. Pitkin County Board of Commissioners, Respondent
More informationPRESENT: Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Russell, S.J.
PRESENT: Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Russell, S.J. CHRISTINE DOLBY OPINION BY v. Record No. 091023 JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. June 10, 2010 CATHERINE DOLBY, ET AL.
More information