Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.45 seconds)
The Commissioner vs S Venkatarama Reddy on 29 November, 2022 cites

Puran Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 1975

It was against this context that the observations referred to above were made. This Court clearly pointed out that where a trespasser was in settled possession of the land he is not entitled to be evicted except in due course of law and he is further entitled to resist or defend his possession even against the rightful owner who tries to dispossess him. The only condition laid down by this Court was that the possession of the trespasser must be settled possession. The Court explained that the settled possession must be extended over a sufficiently long period and acquiesced in by the true owner. This particular expression has persuaded the High Court to hold that since the possession of the appellants' party in this case was only a month old, it cannot be deemed to be a settled possession. We, however, think that this is not what this Court meant in defining the nature of the settled possession. It is indeed difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to when the possession of a trespasser can mature into a settled possession. But what this Court really meant was that the possession of a trespasser must be effective, undisturbed and to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment. For instance a stray or a casual act of possession would not amount to "settled possession". There is no special charm or magic in the word settled possession nor is it a ritualistic formula which can be confined in a 28 straitjacket but it has been used to mean such clear and effective possession of a person, even if he is a trespasser, who gets the right under the criminal law to defend his property against attack even by the true owner. Similarly an occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession. Thus in our opinion the nature of possession in such cases which may entitle a trespasser to exercise the right of private defence of property and person should contain the following attributes:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 310 - S M Ali - Full Document

Yar Muhammad And Anr. vs Lakshmi Das And Ors. on 28 October, 1957

The Court turned down the submission that under the general law applicable to a lessor and a lessee there was no rule or principle which made it obligatory for the lessor to resort to court and obtain an order for possession before he could eject the lessee. The Court quoted with approval the law as stated by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Yar Mohd. v. Lakshmi Das [AIR 1959 All 1 : 1958 All LJ 628 (FB)] (AIR at p. 4):
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 89 - R Dayal - Full Document

Nair Service Society Ltd vs Rev. Father K. C. Alexander & Ors on 12 February, 1968

"Law respects possession even if there is no title to support it. It will not permit any person to take the law in his own hands and to dispossess a person in actual possession without having recourse to a court. No person can be allowed to become a judge in his own cause." (AIR p. 5, para 13) In the oft-quoted case of Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander [AIR 1968 SC 1165 : (1968) 3 SCR 163] this Court held that a person in possession of land in assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. When the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides. The Court quoted Loft's maxim -- "Possessio contra omnes valet praeter eur cui ius sit possessionis (he that hath possession hath right against all but him that 31 hath the very right)" and said: (AIR p. 1175, para
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 390 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next