citedby: 23231

Ramizabi vs Mohammed Yassin on 26 February, 2010

"29. In terms of Article 65 of the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak).

Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 1 - R Mala - Full Document

Rajamanickam @ Kamal Basha vs Mohammed Yassin on 26 February, 2010

"29. In terms of Article 65 of the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak).

Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 2 - R Mala - Full Document

Tmt.A.Vedanayagam vs Annakili on 27 January, 2006

"In terms of Article 65, the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff, but commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak V. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak [(2004) 3 SCC 376]"

Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Jai Kishan And Others vs Sardari Lal And Others on 28 May, 2015

"29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendants possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak)

Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Manoj Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 May, 2015

"29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendants possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak)

Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Malkiat Singh & Others vs Darshan Singh And Others on 1 August, 2017

"29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendants possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak)

Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Nagappan (Died) vs Mayavan on 2 February, 2018

"29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak)

Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - M Dhandapani - Full Document

P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma And Ors on 24 April, 2007

"29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendants possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak)

Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 438 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Whether Idols And Objects Of Worship ... vs State

"29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of 220 limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak (2004) 3 SCC 376)

Allahabad High Court Cites 135 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Ujjain vs M/S Bachhraj Factory on 7 February, 2018

(See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak)

Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results