Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)
Bhaiga Pradhan vs Iswar Adhikari And Anr. on 27 June, 1986 cites

Raj Rani & Anr vs Kailash Chand & Anr on 17 February, 1977

6. The submission made by Mr. Mohanty that a suit originally brought on the. basis of possession based on title is bound to fail if title is not proved, is wholly untenable. There is no authority for such a proposition. Reliance was placed on AIR 1977 S. C. 1123 (Smt. Raj Rani and Anr. v. Kailash Chand and another), 1978 (46) CLT 287 (Budhi Mahal and Ors. v. Gangadhar Das and others) and 1974 (I) CWR 46 (Gobinda Pradhan and Ors. v. Chaturbhuja Parida and others). On a perusal of these decisions, the least that can be said is that they have no application to the case, AIR 1977 S. C. 1123 was a case where the scope of Arts, 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act vis-a-vis Arts. 142 and 144 of the Old Limitation Act were discussed and the change in the law was indicated. 1976(46) CLT 287 is a decision to the same effect and in no way supports the proposition advanced by Mr. Mohanty. The decision merely explains that under Art. 65 of the New Limitation Act all that the plaintiff is required to prove is only his title and that if the defendant wants to defeat the right of the plaintiff he has to establish that he has perfected a prescriptive title by adverse possession for a period of 12 years. 1974 (1) CWR 46 cited by Mr. Mohanty is an authority to the same effect and has no bearing on the question raised by him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - M H Beg - Full Document

Somnath Barman vs Dr. S. P. Raju & Anr on 16 October, 1969

7. It is well-established that if a suit is instituted on the basis of both title and possession and while title fails the plaintiff is found to be in possession, then the suit can be decreed on the basis of his possessory title only against all others except the true owner. The matter was conclusively decided in AIR 1970 S.C. 846 ( Somnath Barman v. Dr. S. P. Raju and another) in which the facts were that the plaintiff brought the suit on the basis of purchase of the suit land under two sale deeds and claimed that he is in possession of the land after the purchase. The cause of action for the suit was the trespass by the second defendant on the suit property, taking over possession of the same and selling It to the first defendant. The defendants denied the plaintiff's title to the suit property as also his possession and on the contrary it was claimed that the second defendant had acquired title to the property by adverse possession and had sold the land to the first defendant Both the trial Court and the High Court found that the plaintiff had not been able to prove his title to the suit property but however the High Court held, disagreeing with the trial Court, that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property from the date of his purchase in about the year 1980 till 1945 when the second defendant trespassed upon the same and took over possession. The High Court thus rejected the plea of adverse possession of the defendants. Before the Supreme Court it was contended that since the suit was for possession on the basis of title and the plaintiff failed to prove her title, the suit was to be dismissed as it was not a suit Under Section 9(Old) of the Specific Relief Act. Negativing the contention the Supreme Court held that the prior possession of the plaintiff is a good title against all but the true owner and the defendants are mere trespassers and hence cannot defeat the plaintiff's lawful possession. Possessory title is a good title as against every body else other than the lawful owner. A similar question arose in AIR 1979 Cal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 62 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1