Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Mst. Sultan Jehan Begum And Ors. vs Gul Mohd. And Ors. on 28 April, 1972

Lal Bahadur Singh vs State Of M.P. on 14 August, 1997

The case of Sultan Jahan Begam (supra), which has been partially overruled by the Full Bench, as already stated earlier, also does not help the State, because possession was adverse from 1943 and suit for declaration and possession was brought within 12 years in the year 1954. The suit was decreed and the decree was executed. It was, therefore, held that the time taken in litigation could not be counted for adverse possession. Time was arrested and the decree related back to the date of filing of the suit. The distinction here is the suit was decreed and possession was delivered. However, in this case even proceedings Under Section 248 did not go against the appellant.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sultan Khan S/O Jugge Khan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 29 October, 1987

110 reconsidered the matter and overruled Shri Damodar's case (supra) and approved the view of this Court in Sultan Jehan Begum's case (supra). Under the circumstances, the said case must be held to have been decided wrongly and therefore, not sufficient to provide support to the appellant. It is rather unfortunate that the learned counsel for the appellant did not investigate the matter fully and relied on an overruled decision.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

State Of M.P. And Others vs Balveer Singh And Others on 16 May, 2001

Sultan Jehan Begum and others Vs. Gul Mohammad and others, reported in AIR 1973 MP 72 to the effect that Section 28 of the Limitation Act (old Act) merely declares when the right of the person out of possession is extinguished and it is not correct to say that section confers title on the person who has been in adverse possession for a certain period. The observations to the effect that there is no law which provides for conferral of title on a person for whatever length of time was also not approved. It was submitted before the Full Bench that whatever may be the position in regard to the general property, the tenancy rights in agricultural holdings could not be acquired by adverse possession and the rights of a bhumiswami can be acquired only under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and cannot be acquired by adverse possession.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Dasarath Behera And Ors. vs Katai Dei And Ors. on 22 February, 1991

In the case of Mst. Sultan Jehan Begum v. Gul Mohd., reported in AIR 1973 Madh Pra 72, a Division Bench of that Court construing section 28 and Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908 held that when a person entitled to possession of his property brings his suit not only for declaration but also for possession against the person in adverse possession within the period prescribed by law and a decree for possession is passed in his favour his right to possession is not extinguished, irrespective of the time spent in the suit, and the execution. The very institution of the suit arrests the period of adverse possession relates back to the date of the suit. Section 28 of the Act merely declares when the right of the person out of possession is extinguished; it is not correct to say that it confers title on the person in adverse possession there is a distinction between a suit for a declaration simpliciter and a suit for a declaration coupled with possession; in the latter case only the decree passed arrests the period of adverse possession.
Orissa High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 7 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Tribhuvanshankar vs Amrutlal on 13 November, 2013

31. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles it is required to be scrutinized whether the time spent in adjudication of the present suit and the appeal arrests the running of time for the purpose of adverse possession. In this regard, we may profitably refer to the decision in Mst. Sultan Jehan Begum and Ors. v. Gul Mohd. and Ors.[15] wherein following principles have been culled out: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 92 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next