AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 136

4.15.2. The High Courts of Jammu & Kashmir1-2, Delhi3, Orissa4 and Punjab & Haryana5-8 have dissented from the decision of the Allahabad High Court and have taken the view that section 27 excludes, by necessary intendment its application to the property, which the party seeking a direction from the Court claims that it exclusively belongs to it.-

It has further held that the court cannot make provision in respect of the individual property of a spouse in the decree in exercise of its inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. Surinder Singh v. Manjit Kaur, AIR 1983 J&K 86.

2. Anil Kumar v. Smt. Aruna Duggal, AIR 1989 NOC (J&K) 63.

3. Shukla v. Brij Bhushan, AIR 1982 Del 223.

4. P. Moharajan v. Chakalayil Kunj, AIR 1988 On 175.

5. Surinder Kaur v. Madan Gopal Singh, AIR 1980 P&H 334.

6. Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 P&H 372.

7. Suresh Kumar v. Smt. Saroj Bala, AIR 1988 P&H 217.

8. Dr. Suraj Prakash v. Mahinder Pal Sharma, AIR 1988 P&H 218.



Conflicts in High Court Decisions on Central Laws - How to Foreclose and how to Resolve Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys