Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 544 (1.95 seconds)
Documents citing P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma And Ors on 24 April, 2007

Lalji Kushwaha & Anr vs Rajesh Narain Sharma on 22 August, 2022

In P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma18, the plaintiff claimed the title based on adverse possession. The Court observed : (SCC pp. 66-67, paras 5-6) ―5. Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession. It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie in it being open, continuous and hostile .
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

N.Thirugnanasambandam vs R.Sundararaj on 26 April, 2012

29.We deem it proper to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma6: (SCC p. 79, paras 51-52) 51. Thereafter the applicants moved the European Commission of Human Rights (ECHR) alleging that the United Kingdom law on adverse possession, by which they lost land to a neighbour, operated in violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention).
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 3 - R S Ramanathan - Full Document

Meenugu Mallaiah And Others vs Ananthula Rajaiah And Another on 9 September, 2016

In view of these two judgments, the Apex Court in P.T. Munichikkana Reddy v. Revamma and Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhal Khengarbhai Harijan and others and in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar (referred supra) had taken a serious view. If that is the case what will happen to the person, who is continuing in possession for a longer period with the notice of owner, who was disabled to enjoy the property for such long period. When a person in occupation of the property though entered into wrongfully either committing crime or tort and after passing sometime he is bound to pay taxes to the Government and sometimes improve the property raising huge or massive constructions or reasonable constructions to the knowledge of real owner, when suddenly real owner woke-up and approach the Court for recovery of possession, certainly it would cause huge loss to the person in possession and similarly the real owner would also put to hardship, but the benefit of limitation can be extended to a person, who is not dormant and at the same time the person who entered into wrongful possession is not entitled to claim equities in his favour. In those circumstances, it is difficult to decide such situation either in favour of the real owner or in favour of person in wrongful possession for a statutory period of 12 years. Perhaps, this is the reason for fixing 12 years period as limitation to claim right over the property by the real owner or to ripen the wrongful possession into adverse possession after completion of continuous possession of 12 years to the knowledge of the real owner. In that view of the position, One oft mentioned explanation can be summed up as you snooz, you loose. According to this sleeping theory adverse possession acts as civil penalty for the wrong doers. The wrong doers are those who sleep on their rights and the penalty is to loose those rights. The law shifts rights away from those who do not use their land because they no longer deserve to hold title. Similarly, those who abstain from suing no longer deserve the right to sue. In either case, the shifting of rights from one person is desirable because it balance the scale of justice.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 46 - Cited by 3 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Modern School vs Shri Bhagwan Singh Son Of Late Sh. Avtar ... on 31 January, 2015

54. It is clear that Sh. Avtar Singh, though he was in continuous possession of the suit premises despite the cancellation of his license vide letter dated 13.06.1991 to vacate the premises by 31.07.1991 but he was not in uninterrupted possession by the true owner though a legal action was not brought by the plaintiff's school against him for recovery of possession of the suit premises. But since July 1991 upto May 2003, the time of 12 years of limitation had not expired for the right or title on the basis of adverse possession to be claimed by Sh. Avtar Singh against the true owner and as per the settled proposition of law as held in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors' case (Supra) that efficacy of adverse possession law depends on strong limitation statutes by operation of which right to access the court expires through the efflux of time, hence such right did not exist until the expiry of the period of limitation of 12 years.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Selvi vs Balasubramanian And Another on 6 September, 2012

"40. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant would develop his argument by placing reliance on such cryptic phrase. There is no adequate pleading relating to adverse possession and ouster. Whereas the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would, by citing the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2007 (4) MLJ 912 (SC) (P.T.Munichikkanna Reddy and others vs. Revamma and others), would develop his argument that it is not as if projected by D1 that prescriptive possession as well as ouster should be presumed as a matter of course. It has become a common or garden principle of law and that too in the wake of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2007 (4) MLJ 912 that plea of ouster or plea of adverse possession should specifically be pleaded with necessary particulars and clinching evidence should be adduced relating there to. An excerpt from the said decision would run thus:
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Sh. Suresh Arya (Deceased) vs Sh. Jagjit Singh Sawhney on 3 May, 2018

In a relatively recent case in P. T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Others v. Revamma & Others (2007) 6 SCC 59] this court again had an occasion to deal with the concept of adverse possession in detail. The court also examined the legal position in various countries particularly in English and American system. We deem it appropriate to reproduce relevant passages in extenso. The court dealing with adverse possession in paras 5 and 6 observed as under:-
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next