<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (3) TMI 740 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197828</link>
    <description>A civil court may invoke inherent powers under the Code of Civil Procedure to protect a co-sharer&#039;s settled specific possession during pending partition proceedings. Where parties have mutually been in separate occupation of distinct flats, and one side interferes by obstructing that possession, the court is not confined to Order 39 relief alone. Section 151 can support a mandatory direction to remove an obstruction such as a padlock and to prevent further interference when the foundational facts of possession are admitted or otherwise clearly established. The principle is that a co-sharer in settled possession cannot be unlawfully dispossessed by another co-sharer while litigation is pending.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504753" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 740 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197828</link>
      <description>A civil court may invoke inherent powers under the Code of Civil Procedure to protect a co-sharer&#039;s settled specific possession during pending partition proceedings. Where parties have mutually been in separate occupation of distinct flats, and one side interferes by obstructing that possession, the court is not confined to Order 39 relief alone. Section 151 can support a mandatory direction to remove an obstruction such as a padlock and to prevent further interference when the foundational facts of possession are admitted or otherwise clearly established. The principle is that a co-sharer in settled possession cannot be unlawfully dispossessed by another co-sharer while litigation is pending.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>