Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Sant And Anr. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) on 4 July, 1961

State vs . Halima on 24 November, 2018

In Sant vs The Union Of India AIR 1962 HP 1, the Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that, " the concept of possession embraces both actual and constructive possession. Possession may exist in law but not in fact and such possession is termed as constructive. The Roman   lawyers   distinguished   possession   in   fact   as   possessio   naturalis   and possession in law as possessio civilis. It is trite law that every owner of property is presumed to be in possession of it unless the contrary is proved. The word 'possession' as used in the aforesaid section is, therefore, wide enough to include not only   actual and  physical  but  also  constructive   possession.  The   legislature must   be   deemed   to   have   been   aware   of   the   legal   connotation   of   the   word 'possession' when it used that word in Section 441, I. P. C. If the intention of the Legislature had been that actual and physical possession should be an ingredient of criminal trespass nothing would have been easier for it than to have qualified 8 the word possession with the words 'actual and physical'...... annoyance will be caused to the owner of vacant property if the same is trespassed upon with a view to oust him and he is not in collusion with the trespasser. He may have to take steps to recover possession and be involved in litigation and it cannot he gainsaid that to be involved in litigation is no pleasure".
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Lal Singh on 23 November, 2023

In Sant vs The Union Of India AIR 1962 HP 1, the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that, "the concept of possession embraces both actual and constructive possession. Possession may exist in law but not in fact and such possession is termed as constructive. The Roman lawyers distinguished possession in fact as possessi- naturalis and possession in law as possession-civilis. It is trite law that every owner of property is presumed to be in possession of it unless the contrary is proved. The word 'possession' as used in the aforesaid section is, therefore, wide enough to include not only actual and physical but also constructive possession. The legislature must be deemed to have been aware of the legal connotation of the word 'possession' when it used that word in Section 441, I. P. C. If the intention of the Legislature had been that actual and physical possession should be an ingredient of criminal trespass nothing would have been easier for it than to have qualified the word possession with the words 'actual and physical'...... annoyance will be caused to the owner of vacant property if the same is trespassed upon with a view to oust him and he is not in collusion with the trespasser. He may have to take steps to recover possession and be involved in litigation and it cannot he gainsaid that to be involved in litigation is no pleasure".
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Hoti Lal And Ors on 27 November, 2019

In Sant vs The Union Of India AIR 1962 HP 1, the Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that, " the concept of possession embraces both actual and constructive possession. Possession may exist in law but not in fact and such possession is termed as constructive. The Roman lawyers distinguished possession in fact as possessio naturalis and possession in law as possessio civilis. It is trite law that every owner of property is presumed to be in possession of it unless the contrary is proved. The word 'possession' as used in the aforesaid section is, therefore, wide enough to include not only actual and physical but also constructive possession. The legislature must be deemed to have been aware of the legal connotation of the word 'possession' when it used that word in Section 441, I. P. C. If the intention of the Legislature had been that actual and physical possession should be an ingredient of criminal trespass nothing would have been easier for it than to have qualified the word possession with the words 'actual and physical'....."
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Kuldeep Singh & Anr. on 20 December, 2021

In Sant vs. The Union of India AIR 1962 HP 1, the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that, "the concept of possession embraces both actual and constructive possession. Possession may exist in law but not in fact and such possession is termed as constructive. The Roman lawyers distinguished possession in fact as possessio naturalis and possession in law as possessio civilis. It is trite law that every owner of property is presumed to be in possession of it unless the contrary is proved. The word 'possession' as used in the aforesaid section is, therefore, wide enough to include not only actual and physical but also constructive possession. The legislature must be deemed to have been aware of the legal connotation of the word 'possession' when it used that word in Section 441, I.P.C. If the intention of the Legislature had been that actual and physical possession should be an ingredient of criminal trespass nothing would have been easier for it than to have qualified the word possession with the words 'actual and physical'......annoyance will be caused to the owner of vacant property if the same is trespassed upon with a view to oust him and he is not in collusion with the trespasser. He may have to take steps to recover possession and be involved in litigation and it cannot be gainsaid that to be involved in litigation is no pleasure".
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1