Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Hardit Singh vs Gurmukh Singh on 29 January, 1918

Jagannath Marwari And Ors. vs Chandni Bibi And Anr. on 21 June, 1921

Indeed before this action was brought, there was no attempt on the part of the defendants to rely on adverse possession; their pretence was that they were the rightful owners, and one of them, the first defendant, has pledged his outh in support of that untrue allegation in the witness-box in this suit; they cannot consistently urge that from 1901 the first defendant began to hold adversely to the knowledge of the rightful owner; See the observations of Lord Macanaghten in Corea v. Appuhami (1918) A.C. 895 : 87 L.J.P.C. 146, Reliance may further be placed on the judgments of Lord Buckmaster in Hurdit Singh v. Gurmukh Singh Ind. Cas.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Joynarain Sen Ukil vs Suchitra Debya on 14 April, 1921

2. The first point which requires examination is the question of the extent of the share of the plaintiff in the joint property; the solution depends upon the determination of two factors, namely, the time of the death of Sahachari when the succession opened out to the reversionary heirs of her husband and who were the persons alive at that time competent to take as such reversionary heirs, The Subordinate Judge has found that she died in 1862 and that the share of her husband thereupon passed to the father of the plaintiff, who was then alive, as the grandfather of the husband of the first defendant had previously died. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge, which is amply supported by the evidence on the record. The story that the share was allowed to be enjoyed by other members of the family, although the father of the plaintiff became entitled thereto as reversionary heir, is not supported by any reliable evidence or intelligible hypothesis. As a last resort, it was argued in the Court below--and the argument has been repeated in this Court--that the title of the father of the plaintiff was extinguished by adverse possession on the part of the husband of the first defendant. The requisites essential for the establishment of title by adverse possession as between co-owners of joint property have not, however, been made out. As has been frequently pointed out in recent years by the Judicial Committee, for instance, by Lord Macnaghten in Corea v. Appuhamy (1912) A.C. 230 at p. 236 : 81 L.J.P.C. 151 : 105 L.T. 836, by Lord Dunedin in Muttunayangam v. Brito (1918) A.C. 895 : 87 L.J.P.C. 146, by Lord Buckmaster in Hardit Singh v. Gurmukh Singh and by Viscount Cave in Varada Pillai v. Jeevarathnammal 5(sic) Ind. Cas. 901 : 46 I.A. 285 : 43 M. 244 : (1919) M.W.N. 724 : 10 L.W. 679 : 24 C.W.S. 346 : 38 M.L.J. 313 : 18 A.L.J. 274 : 2U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 64 : 22 Bom. L.R. 444 (P. C), the entry and possession of land by one co-owner will not be presumed to be adverse to the others, but will ordinarily he held to be for the benefit of all; the difference between the possession of a co-owner and other cases is that acts which if done by a stranger would per se be a disseisin, are, in the case of tenancies in-common, susceptible of explanation consistently with the real title; acts of ownership are not, in tenancies in common, acts of disseisin; the law will not presume that one tenant-in common intends to oust another; the facts, if the contrary is asserted, must be notorious and the intent must be established in proof.
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs Daya Ram Nagina Ram And Ors. on 12 May, 1961

As observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Hardit Singh v. Gurmukh Singh, AIR 1918 PC 1, "the phrase 'exclusive possession' has an equivocal meaning * * * * * If by exclusive possession of joint estate is meant that one member of the joint family alone occupies it, that by itself affords no evidence of exclusion of other interested members of the family.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 157 - Full Document

Suraj Mal And Ors. vs Babu Lal And Anr. on 28 November, 1984

(28) No doubt, if there is an ouster the possession of a coparcener can be adverse. However mere management of the joint family properties or realisation of rent would not amount to ouster. Suraj Mal was Karta of the family and as such had a right to manage properties and realise the rent. This conduct was not inconsistent with his character as a Karta.In Hardit Singh & others v. Gurmukh Singh and others AIR1918 Privy Council page 1(12) it was held that "if by exclusive possession of Joint estate is meant that one member ofthe Joint family alone occupies it. that by itself affords no evidence of exclusion of other interested members of the family Uninterrupted sole possession of such property, without more,must be referred to the lawful title possession by the joint holder to use the joint estate and cannot be regarded as an assertion of the right to hold it as separate, so as to assert an adverse claim against other interested members."
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Mr.Dhandapani vs Mr.Rajaram

In this connection, our attention has been invited to an earliest decision in Hardit Singh v. Gurmukh Singh [AIR 1918 PC 1 : 20 Bom LR 1064] wherein it has been held as under: (AIR p. 1) 17/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.17 of 2023 “If by exclusive possession of joint estate is meant that one member of the joint family alone occupies it, that by itself affords no evidence of exclusion of other interested members of the family. Uninterrupted sole possession of such property, without more, must be referred to the lawful title possessed by the joint holder to use the joint estate, and cannot be regarded as an assertion of a right to hold it as separate, so as to assert an adverse claim against other interested members. If possession may be either lawful or unlawful, in the absence of evidence, it must be assumed to be the former. The evidence of actual user is not sufficient to establish abandonment or exclusion.”
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr.Dhandapani vs Mr.Rajaram on 30 January, 2025

In this connection, our attention has been invited to an earliest decision in Hardit Singh v. Gurmukh Singh [AIR 1918 PC 1 : 20 Bom LR 1064] wherein it has been held as under: (AIR p. 1) “If by exclusive possession of joint estate is meant that one member of the joint family alone occupies it, that by itself affords no evidence of exclusion of other interested members of the family. Uninterrupted sole possession of such property, without more, must be referred to the lawful title possessed by the joint holder to use the joint estate, and cannot be regarded as an assertion of a right to hold it as separate, so as to assert an adverse claim against other interested members. If possession may be either lawful or unlawful, in the absence of evidence, it must be assumed to be the former. The evidence of actual user is not sufficient to establish abandonment or exclusion.”
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hangeswar Kundu And Ors. vs Surjya Narain Mondal And Ors. on 28 November, 1924

It is contended by the learned advocate for the appellants that these findings are not sufficient to constitute ouster in law and reference has been made in this connexion to the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Hardit Singh v. Gurmukh Singh A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 1 and It is maintained that in order to constitute ouster there must be an express exclusion of the other co-sharers from the property in suit. It is difficult to lay down any definite rule of law as to what constitutes an ouster, but every case must depend upon its own facts and the Court of fact is entitled to find whether certain set of facts presented before it does or does not amount to ouster. The decisions of the Judicial Committee, which are based on fact and law are not sure guides in such questions which arise in second appeals. But we are unable to hold that the facts found in the present case do not in law amount to ouster.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next