Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)

Gurudwara Sahib vs Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr on 16 September, 2013

It does not follow from the language used in the statute. The large number of decisions of this Court and various other decisions of the Privy Council, High Courts and of English courts which have been discussed by us and observations made in Halsbury's Laws based on various decisions indicate that suit can be filed by the plaintiff on the basis of title acquired by way of adverse possession or on the basis of possession under Articles 64 and 65. There is no bar under Article 65 or any of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 as against a plaintiff who has perfected his title by virtue of adverse possession to sue to evict a person or to protect his possession and plethora of decisions are to the effect that by virtue of extinguishment of title of the owner, the person in possession acquires absolute title and if actual owner dispossesses another person after extinguishment of his title, he can be evicted by such a person by filing of suit under Article 65 of the Act. Thus, the decision of Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala [Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala, (2014) 1 SCC 669 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 630] and of the Punjab and Haryana High Court cannot be said to be laying down the correct law. More so because of various decisions of this Court to the contrary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 477 - A K Sikri - Full Document

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

And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations applicable to the case, his right is forever extinguished, and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title.‟ The above statement was quoted with the approval by this Court in Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander [Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165]. Their Lordships at para 22 emphatically stated: (AIR p. 1175) „22.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 390 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs Manjit Kaur on 7 August, 2019

11. Mr. Vachher further submitted that the principle of adverse possession is not merely a defense which may be taken but one which is recognized in law as giving birth to a right to claim ownership itself. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered by three learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. vs. Manjit Kaur & Ors.3 in support of the aforesaid submission.
Supreme Court of India Cites 63 - Cited by 281 - A Mishra - Full Document

Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 21 March, 2012

14. Learned counsel appearing for the decree holder also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (Dead) Through LRs.5 to submit that mere long possession is not sufficient to uphold a claim of title based upon the doctrine of adverse possession. It was submitted that once the title of the decree holder and the judgement debtors over the suit property had been recognised, the mere possession of the first floor of the property by the Objectors and their predecessors would not justify the grant of the 5 (2012) 5 SCC 370 EX.P. 50/2021 Page 7 of 20 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:23.03.2023 17:23:50 Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2040 prayers as made since their right would always remain subordinate to those of the actual owner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1056 - Full Document
1   2 Next