Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 68 (1.42 seconds)
Documents citing Sheodhari Rai And Ors. vs Suraj Prasad Singh And Ors. on 1 December, 1950

Laxmichand Bhagaji Ltd. Thro' ... vs Madhubhai Manishankar Desai on 21 February, 2008

27. The Court is also of the view that simply because some rent receipts are produced without any lease or tenancy agreement, the relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be established. The present respondent cannot claim the status of tenant only on the basis of some rent receipts alleged to have been issued. Such payment would tantamount to the charges for permissive occupation and it would not create any right or title to the possession of the property. The appellant's advocate Mr. Dipen Shah has, therefore, rightly relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheodhari Rai v. Suraj Prasad Singh (Supra).
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - K A Puj - Full Document

Chiluka Dattareya vs Chiluka Siddiram on 7 February, 2025

27.2 He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheodhari Rai and others v. Suraj Prasad Singh and others (4 supra) on the aspect that, "The possession of the defendants being permissive, it must be regarded as having been in possession until the later asserted an adverse possession. It was not open to the trial court to make a case which was not set up by the parties."
Telangana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Ajay Mehra vs Ebercon Gmbh And 3 Ors on 14 December, 2018

The Supreme Court referred to principle laid down in Sheodhar Rai vs. Suraj Prasad Singh26 in which it was held that where the defendant in his written statement set up title to the disputed lands, the Court could not, on his failure to prove the case, permit him to make out a new case which was not made out in the written statement, but was wholly inconsistent with the title set up by the defendant in the written statement. The new plea on which the defendant sought to rely that he was holding the suit property was not made in the written statement nor was it part of the issues and therefore no evidence could have been led about it. In such a case a party cannot be permitted to justify its claim on a ground that which is entirely new and which is inconsistent with the ground taken in the pleadings.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - A K Menon - Full Document

Wind World (India) Limited vs Enercon Gmbh And 3 Ors on 14 December, 2018

The Supreme Court referred to principle laid down in Sheodhar Rai vs. Suraj Prasad Singh26 in which it was held that where the defendant in his written statement set up title to the disputed lands, the Court could not, on his failure to prove the case, permit him to make out a new case which was not made out in the written statement, but was wholly inconsistent with the title set up by the defendant in the written statement. The new plea on which the defendant sought to rely that he was holding the suit property was not made in the written statement nor was it part of the issues and therefore no evidence could have been led about it. In such a case a party cannot be permitted to justify its claim on a ground that which is entirely new and which is inconsistent with the ground taken in the pleadings.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 13 - A K Menon - Full Document

Yogesh Mehra vs Enercon Gmbh And 3 Ors on 14 December, 2018

The Supreme Court referred to principle laid down in Sheodhar Rai vs. Suraj Prasad Singh26 in which it was held that where the defendant in his written statement set up title to the disputed lands, the Court could not, on his failure to prove the case, permit him to make out a new case which was not made out in the written statement, but was wholly inconsistent with the title set up by the defendant in the written statement. The new plea on which the defendant sought to rely that he was holding the suit property was not made in the written statement nor was it part of the issues and therefore no evidence could have been led about it. In such a case a party cannot be permitted to justify its claim on a ground that which is entirely new and which is inconsistent with the ground taken in the pleadings.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - A K Menon - Full Document

Wind World (India) Limited vs Enercon Gmbh And 3 Ors on 14 December, 2018

The Supreme Court referred to principle laid down in Sheodhar Rai vs. Suraj Prasad Singh26 in which it was held that where the defendant in his written statement set up title to the disputed lands, the Court could not, on his failure to prove the case, permit him to make out a new case which was not made out in the written statement, but was wholly inconsistent with the title set up by the defendant in the written statement. The new plea on which the defendant sought to rely that he was holding the suit property was not made in the written statement nor was it part of the issues and therefore no evidence could have been led about it. In such a case a party cannot be permitted to justify its claim on a ground that which is entirely new and which is inconsistent with the ground taken in the pleadings.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - A K Menon - Full Document

K C Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2019

10. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 ['Act' for brevity] is a special legislation addressing the issues of unauthorized occupation of public premises i.e., the shopping complex in this case and would supercede the application of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which 15 is a general legislation. He has relied on judgments of the Apex Court including Delhi Development Authority v. Anant Raj Agencies Private Limited reported in [(2016) 11 SCC 406] and Sheodhari Rai and Others v. Suraj Prasad Singh and Others., reported in AIR 1954 SC 758 in support of his contention.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S S Yadav - Full Document

Smt. Sailabala Choudary, vs Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimhaswami Vari ... on 31 December, 2018

The learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheodhari Rai v. Suraj Prasad Singh (1954 Supreme Court 758) to contend that mere payment of rent does not necessarily establish relationship of landlord and tenant, Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan ( AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477) with respect to the scope of certiorari jurisdiction, Veerappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2002(5) ALD 121 (DB)), to support that the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 7(2) of the 1956 Act has no power or jurisdiction to entertain Appeal beyond statutory period of limitation of 60 days to justify the rejection of the petitioner's appeal in W.P.No. 15367 of 2005, Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, Tirupati rep. by its Custodian Assistant / Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, v. Komma Venkatamuni (2018(4) ALT 354) to support that sale exchange or mortgage of property of religious institution of immovable 13 properties belonging to any charitable or religious institutions or endowments affected without prior sanction of the commissioner / government shall be null and void.
Telangana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narsimha Swamy, vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 31 December, 2018

The learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheodhari Rai v. Suraj Prasad Singh (1954 Supreme Court 758) to contend that mere payment of rent does not necessarily establish relationship of landlord and tenant, Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan ( AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477) with respect to the scope of certiorari jurisdiction, Veerappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2002(5) ALD 121 (DB)), to support that the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 7(2) of the 1956 Act has no power or jurisdiction to entertain Appeal beyond statutory period of limitation of 60 days to justify the rejection of the petitioner's appeal in W.P.No. 15367 of 2005, Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, Tirupati rep. by its Custodian Assistant / Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, v. Komma Venkatamuni (2018(4) ALT 354) to support that sale exchange or mortgage of property of religious institution of immovable 13 properties belonging to any charitable or religious institutions or endowments affected without prior sanction of the commissioner / government shall be null and void.
Telangana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mst. Mughlani (Widow) vs Amina Begum (Died On 07.08.202 on 12 April, 2023

9. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners do not dispute the fact that their entry in the suit house was on account of employment of the petitioner No. 1 with the owners of the suit house. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioners themselves that they are allowed to occupy the suit house by its owners. In other words, it was a permissive possession of the suit house with the petitioners. The permissive possession will always continue to be permissive till and until the licensee asserts and proves the assertion of adverse possession. Such assertion and the proof in that regard should necessarily be for a continuous period of twelve years. The Apex E­79832/2016 Sharifuddin Vs. Ameena Begum Page 15/34 Court in Sheodhari Rai v. Suraj Prasad Singh has clearly held that where possession is proved in its origin to be permissive, it will be presumed that it continued to be of the same character until and unless some thing occurred to make it adverse.
Delhi District Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next