B. Valsala vs Sundaram Nadar Bhaskaran on 1 March, 1993
In the
decision in Valsala (supra) in paragraph 12 the learned Single Judge
held that :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.86 seconds)Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990
17. The learned counsel for the defendants relying upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi
Sorab Warden and Others, AIR 1990 SC 867, would argue that
the defendants are entitled to protection under the second paragraph
of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. In paragraph 25 of the
above decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :
Gautam Paul vs Debi Rani Paul And Ors on 17 October, 2000
Since the 1st defendant is not a sharer
of the dwelling-house involved in this case, and the suit is not for
pre-emption, the decision in Gautam Paul (supra) does not apply
to the facts of this case.
Ghantesher Ghosh vs Madan Mohan Ghosh & Ors on 18 September, 1996
In the decision in Gautam Paul (supra), relying upon the above
principles laid down in Ghantesher Ghosh (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex court held that, prayer for partition is necessary for claiming
the right of pre-emption under Section 4 of the Partition Act. The
right of pre-emption recognized under Section 4 of the Partition Act
is available only to a sharer of a dwelling-house. The present suit is
not one claiming pre-emption.
George P.John vs Alex P.John on 5 March, 2020
28.In the decision in George v. John, 1984 KHC 117 relied upon by
the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, another Division Bench of this
Court held in paragraph 9 thus :
Kadoth Ambu Nair vs Secretary Of State For India In Council on 7 April, 1924
"........A trespasser is a person in wrongful possession
who has a hostile animus against the person entitled to
the legal possession of the property. A licensee has no
possession and having come on the property under a
permissive arrangement with no possession or interest
it cannot be assumed that the moment the licence is
withdrawn he acquires the necessary physical and
RSA 943/2008
22
mental elements to become a trespasser. He might
usurp the possession and develop into a trespasser, but
then it is not an automatic and necessary development
the moment the licence is over. If he is a trespasser he
would perfect his possession and become an owner at
the end of 12 years. As the Privy Council observed in
Kodoth Ambu Nayar v. Secretary of State for India, ILR
Madras 572 (582) "Their Lordships think that a
licensee cannot claim title only from possession,
however, long, unless it is proved that the possession
was adverse to that of the licenser, to his knowledge
and with his acquiescence". We are not concerned with
title but this passage is helpful to show that possession
of a licensee could become hostile, after revocation of
the licence only if the possession was adverse to the
licenser to his knowledge and with his acquiescence.
That is a matter to be pleaded and proved by the
licensee. Lawful possession however long will not be
adverse and it is only adverse possession that leads to
the acquisition of title. A licensee's occupation does not
become hostile possession, or the possession of a
RSA 943/2008
23
trespasser the moment the licence comes to an end."
Sant Lal Jain vs Avtar Singh on 12 March, 1985
29. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sant
Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh, AIR 1985 SC 857, the learned counsel for
the plaintiffs would argue that even if there is some delay in
approaching the court, the court should not deny relief of mandatory
injunction to the licenser by driving him to file another round of suit
for recovery of possession, as it is necessary to avoid multiplicity of
suits. In paragraph 7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
1