Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Thakore Fatesingji Dipsangji vs Bamanji Ardeshir Dalal on 26 February, 1903

Bhailal Ntahabhai vs Kalansang Gulabsang on 23 August, 1927

509 and Thakore Fatesingji v. Bamanji A. Dalal, (1903) I.L.R. 27 Bom. 515, s.c. 5 Bom. L.R. 274 that a limited interest can be acquired by adverse possession, it will be seen that the facts upon which at least the former of these cases proceeds are very different from the facts now before us. There the tenant successfully resisted an attempt by the landlord to oust him, pleading a permanent tenancy. And it was held, that being so, adverse possession for twelve years of the limited interest thereby set up was sufficient to confer upon the defendant the character which he claimed. But we have not got here facts resembling those. Here there was no successful resistance by the tenants of a claim to recover possession. The matter was the precise contrary. The plaintiffs succeeded, and though the defendants did remain in possession, it is not shown that they remained in possession, in assertion of an adverse title. For no such assertion is proved after the date of the decision in that case.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Shri Satyadhyantirtha Swami vs Raghunath Daji Patil on 9 October, 1925

4. Then, as regards the question of the extent to which these documents can be used for the collateral purpose of ascertaining the origin and nature of the possession of the plaintiffs, the Privy Council have, no doubt, ruled that they can be so used. But it seems to me to be going entirely beyond the proper and legitimate extent to which that origin and nature can be so ascertained, to say that you can look at the whole of the terms of the documents although under Section 49 those terms are inadmissible in evidence. It is true that the documents can be looked at to show that the plaintiffs were in possession as tenants, and if the documents had in clear language said that they were permanent tenants, that might probably also be taken into consideration in view of the ruling in this Court in Thakore Fatesingji v. Bamanji A. Dalal (1903) I.L.R. 27 Bom. 515, s.c. 5 Bom. L.R. 247.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

(Shri) Satyadhyantirtha Swami vs Raghunath Daji Patil And Ors. on 9 October, 1925

5. Then, as regards the question of the extent to which these documents can be used for the collateral purpose of ascertaining the origin and nature of the possession of the plaintiffs, the Privy Council have, no doubt, ruled that they can be so used. But it seems to me to be going entirely beyond the proper and legitimate extent to which that origin and nature can be so ascertained, to say that you can look at the whole of the terms of the documents although under Section 49 those terms are inadmissible in evidence. It is true that the documents can be looked at to show that the plaintiffs ware in possession as tenants, and if the documents had in clear language said that they ware permanent tenants, that might probably also be taken into consideration in view of the ruling in this Court in Thakore Fatesingji v. Bamanji A. Dalal [1903] 27 Bom. 515.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Gitabai Bhau Rajmane vs Krishna Malhari Shinde on 20 August, 1920

There must be a distinct claim in opposition to the right of the landlord which is brought to his notice and acquiesced in. The mere fact that tha landlord on hearing of the claim does not take active steps against the tenant does not necessarily amount to acquiescence. The learned Judge, therefore, considered that the defendant had not become a Mirasdar by adverse possession, and passed a decree directing the defendant to put the plaintiff in possession. In first appeal this decree was reversed, the plaintiff's claim for possession was rejected and the defendant was directed to pay enhanced rent. The learned Judge relied on the decision of Thakore Fatesingji v. Bamanji A. Dalal. (1903) I.L.R. 27 Bom. 515 : 5 Bom. L.R. 274. I see no reason to dissent from the decision in that case. But the principles laid down there must be applied to the facts of each case as they arise. It appears to me the simple question is, could the mortgagor in this case have filed a suit against the defendant for ejectment before he redeemed the mortgage?
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

H. Mathewson And Anr. vs Sri Sri Ram Kanai Singh Deb on 11 March, 1909

53. As to the omission to serve a notice to quit, on defendant No. 1, we are dealing with a claim to hold land under a permanent lease (mokarari mourasi) and it appears to me that the current of authority in this country is decidedly in favour of the view that when such a lease; is attacked on the ground that it is void or voidable, the case which it is sought to establish is that the person who has been purporting to hold as tenant under the lease, was never a tenant in fact but a trespasser all initio. It would seem to follow that while on the one hand he is at liberty to rely on adverse possession for the statutory period as a defence, though of course he cannot obtain a larger interest than he affects to have exercised, on the other hand he is not entitled to a notice to quit. Money paid as for rent under an invalid lease may perhaps be regarded as money paid on account of mesne profits. The question has often been discussed and I. need not do more than mention some of the reported cases. The cases of Ram Kanai Ghosh v. Raja, Sri Sri, Hari Narayan Singh Deo Bahadur 2 C.L.J. 546 and Shama v. Abhiram 33 C. 511, decided in this High Court may be cited and reference may also be made to the judgment of Batty, J. in Thakore Fatesingji Dipsangji v. Bamanji Ardeshir Dalal 27 B. 515 and to the cases of Seshamma Shettati v. Chickaya Hegade 25 M. 507 and Parameswaram v. Krishnan Tengal 26 M. 535.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Md. Serajul Haque And Ors. vs Dwijendra Mohan Sen Gupta And Ors. on 9 July, 1940

18. There are some decisions which no doubt lend some support to the view that even where a tenant is in possession of land under the terms of a valid tenancy, he can, during the continuance of his term, set up higher rights than he has, and claim an acquisition of such higher rights by adverse possession for the statutory period. See, for instance, the case in Thakore Fatesingji v. Bamanji A. Dalai ('03) 27 Bom 515. But on the other hand, there are pronouncements of the Judicial Committee definitely laying down a contrary proposition.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bastacolla Colliery Co. Ltd. vs Bandhu Beldar And Anr. on 23 March, 1960

It may be pointed out, however, that Batty, J. has said at page 534 of the report that in (1879) 4 AC 324, Lord Selborne was alone in observing that limitation would not have run if rent, however, small, had been received. As I have already shown, I may say with respect that this statement is not correct. However, his decision that the right of the proprietor to recover the lands in suit was barred by limitation was rested in that case on the ground that the defendant's claim as a permanent tenant was notorious. It was argued that the possession of a tenant would not become adverse merely because he thought that he had a permanent lease. Batty, J. accepted this argument and said:
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 20 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1   2 3 Next