Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 45 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing T.P.R. Palania Pillai (Died) And Ors. vs Amjath Ibrahim Rowther And Anr. on 6 July, 1942

Palanisamy vs Mariammal on 28 January, 2015

In such a situation, the decision of the Bench of this Court in Palani Pillai v. Ibrahim Rowther, clearly applies. In that case in respect of property owned by the members of a Muhammadan family, some of the co-owners executed a usufructuary mortgage of certain specific items and the mortgagee entered into possession of the mortgaged items. It was held that adverse possession i.e., ouster in such a case, started from the date of possession by the mortgagee and not from the date of ouster to the knowledge of the other members. The principle of this decision is that while possession of one co-owner is in itself rightful and does not imply hostility, the position is different when the stranger is in possession and that his possession itself indicates that it is adverse to the true owners.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

A.U. Mohamed Rowther And Anr. vs Srimathi Jaina Bibi Alias Thayammal on 18 April, 1972

In this Second Appeal Mr. N. S. Raghavan, the learned Counsel for the appellants, relied on the decision of the Full Bench in Palania Pillai (died) and Ors. v. Amjath Ibrahim Rowther and contended that the facts of this case would clearly fall within the scope of that decision and that, therefore, the view taken by the lower appellate Court that there was no acquisition of title by adverse possession by the first defendant could not be sustained. To find out whether the principle of the Full Bench decision referred to above would apply to the facts of this case, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts of this case. The suit properties were originally owned by the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant. After his death, his wife, was in possession of the properties for herself and on behalf of the plaintiff and the first defendant, who were then minors. It is not in dispute that from the year 1925 till the year 1944, the mother mortgaged the properties with possession to third parties under various documents Exhibits B-l, B-3, B-4 and B-7. The first defendant, even when he was a minor, had gone to Burma and he returned to India only in 1946. Admittedly, after his return from Burma, the first defendant redeemed the mortgages, Exhibits B-l, B-3, B-4 and B-7, and took possession of the properties from the various mortgagees. Subsequent to the redemption of the above four mortgages, the first defendant was in possession of the properties for a year or two and thereafter he in his turn mortgaged the properties to the second defendant under Exhibits B-l3 to B-l7. The plaintiff, who is the elder sister of the first defendant, had kept quiet all these years and has filed the present suit in 1962 claiming her share in the suit properties. Though the trial Court has not given any specific finding on the question whether the plaintiff was aware of the mortgages created by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, the lower appellate Court has given a specific finding that the plaintiff was not aware of the mortgages executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, But the fact is that the second defendant has been in possession of the properties as a usufructuary mortgagee from the first defendant. It was in those circumstances the question whether the first defendant has acquired title to the share of the plaintiff by adverse possession to the suit properties has to be decided. Plaintiff, is admittedly one of the co-sharers of the properties.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arumuga Gounder (Died) vs Velusamy on 9 November, 2006

In Palania Pillai V. Amjath Ibhrahim, (1942)2 M.L.J. 321 A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 622 (F.B.) the question that came for consideration was whether a usufructuary mortgage executed by some of the co-owners for the entire property and mortgagee enters possession, whether such possession is adverse? Their Lordships said that mortgagee's possession will be adverse to the owners if the mortgagee is allowed to continue for a period of more than 12 years till prescribing mortgagee's right, the moment he fails to enter possession, that will be adverse to the non-alienating co-owners. At page 625, it is held thus:
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arumuga Gounder (Died) vs Velusamy on 9 November, 2006

In Palania Pillai V. Amjath Ibhrahim, (1942)2 M.L.J. 321 A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 622 (F.B.) the question that came for consideration was whether a usufructuary mortgage executed by some of the co-owners for the entire property and mortgagee enters possession, whether such possession is adverse? Their Lordships said that mortgagee's possession will be adverse to the owners if the mortgagee is allowed to continue for a period of more than 12 years till prescribing mortgagee's right, the moment he fails to enter possession, that will be adverse to the non-alienating co-owners. At page 625, it is held thus:
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kalika Dut Mishra And Ors. vs Abdul Ajij Mia And Ors. on 1 August, 1975

I may refer here to another decision cited by Mr. Rai in the case of Palania Pillai v. Amjath Ibrahim Rowther, (AIR 1942 Mad 622) (FB). It was a suit filed by a co-sharer of a Mohammadan family to recover possession of his share in the properties mortgaged by some of the co-sharers other than the plaintiffs. It was held in that case that the suit was barred under Article 144 of the Limitation Act at the end of 12 years from the date of the mortgage and possession of the mortgagee became adverse against the plaintiffs from the moment the mortgagee entered in possession and from the date of ouster to the knowledge of the plaintiff. How this case, I fail to understand, helps the appellants. This proposition does not arise on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and Mr. Mitra appearing for the respondents has not disputed this proposition of law.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ajit Singh vs Smt. Subaghan And Ors. on 19 March, 1969

8. The last aspect of the matter that has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that Ajit Singh appellant claims title to the land purchased by him by reason of adverse possession. The learned counsel has stressed that he was a stranger, he purchased defined survey numbers from a co-sharer, namely, Ranjit Singh, and ever since the purchase of the same he has been in exclusive possession of the land. In this way the learned counsel has urged that Ajit Singh appellant has acquired title to the land in his possession by prescription. He has relied upon T. P. R. Palania Pillai v. Amjath Ibrahim Rowther, AIR 1942 Mad 622 (FB) in which at page 625, the learned Chief Justice observed that "when one of several co-sharers lets into possession a stranger who proceeds to cultivate the land for his own benefit the other co-sharers must, unless they deliberately close their eyes, know of what is going on, but if they are so regardless of their own interests they must take the consequences." The learned counsel has stressed that the learned Judges after review of cases on the subject made the observation, as has been reproduced above, and on the basis of that observation Ajit Singh appellant has completed his title by adverse possession for prescribed time so far as the land purchased by him is concerned.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next