Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 157 (1.22 seconds)
Documents citing P.Periasami (Dead) By Lrs vs P. Periathambi And Others on 11 October, 1995

Siya Sharan vs Taj Singh(Dead)Thro.Lrs.Smt.Kamla ... on 8 January, 2024

12. The plea of ownership simpliciter is based on the concept of title, which one may acquire through various sources like succession, gift, will, sale, exchange, grant etc. etc. and the person in possession is essentially to be treated as being in lawful possession. While on the other hand when the plea of adverse possession is projected inherent is the plea that someone else is the ownership of the property. (See: P. Periasami (dead) by L.Rs. vs. P. Periathambi and others (1995) 6 SCC 523. Having said so, it can safely be concluded that the pleas based on title and simultaneously on adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Devender Kumar vs Christopher Joseph on 27 August, 2014

21 Considering the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that it is upon the defendants who have no title upon the entire burden of proving that possession is adverse to that of the plaintiffs. The limitation period in such case is for 12 years from day possession becomes adverse. They could not show when and how the possession became adverse. Defendants cannot take contrary and inconsistent pleas by claiming the ownership on the one hand and if they fail to prove the same, they cannot claim ownership by adverse possession as was held in P. Periasami Vs. P. Pariathambi, 1995 6 SCC 523, as has been Contd....27 of 28 : 28 :
Delhi District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.Ramananda Mallaya vs K.Anasuya Bai on 17 March, 2009

24. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent on the decision of the Apex Court in P.Periasami v. P. Periathambi (1995) 6 SCC 523). The facts of the case as summarised by the Apex Court show that there was an elder high in the line who owned the properties sought to be partitioned between the two branches of the family. The properties were his self acquired properties. He died leaving behind three sons. By that time no grandson was born from the loins of the three sons and therefore on his death the properties came in the possession of the three sons. Subsequently sons were born to those sons and thereafter grandsons. There was a demand to effect partition. By that time certain properties were allegedly purchased out of the income derived from those properties and they were A.S.172/1995 53 also brought in, being within the nucleus and claimed to be partible. Plaintiffs claimed partition on the basis that the properties received from the family elder and the accretions made thereto from the income derived from the said properties are joint Hindu family properties and they are entitled to get their defined shares. The defendants took the plea that the properties had come from the elder to his three sons not by survivorship but by way of inheritance. The assumption that the three sons and the elder were members of a joint Hindu family was refuted. It was pleaded that the so called accretions to the properties could not be related to the nucleus and the accretions were personal accumulations of the defendants and therefore cannot be divided.
Kerala High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 2 - S Nambiar - Full Document

Harish Relan vs Kaushal Kumari Relan on 19 January, 2017

"17. The legal position is no doubt well settled. To establish a claim of title by prescription, that is adverse possession for 12 years or more, the possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years. It is also well settled that long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession if it was either RFA 705/2016 Page 40 of 53 permissive possession or possession without animus possidendi. The pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Unless the person possessing the property has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the true owner, the period for prescription will not commence. (Vide Periasami vs. P. Periathambi - (1995) 6 SCC 523, Md. Mohammad Ali vs. Jagdish Kalita - (2004) 1 SCC 271 and P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy vs. Revamma - (2007) 6 SCC 59)" (emphasis added)
Delhi High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - H Kohli - Full Document

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

12. The plea of ownership simpliciter is based on the concept of title, which one may acquire through various sources like succession, gift, will, sale, exchange, grant etc. etc. and the person in possession is essentially to be treated as being in lawful possession. While on the other hand when the plea of adverse possession is projected inherent is the plea that someone else is the ownership of the property. (See: P. Periasami (dead) by L.Rs. vs. P. Periathambi and others (1995) 6 SCC 523. Having said so, it can safely be concluded that the pleas based on title and simultaneously on adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next