Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.20 seconds)
Jamadar Mian And Anr. vs Amir Hassan And Ors. on 7 September, 1955 cites

Thomas vs Thomas on 17 November, 1924

son enters into possession of property belonging to A person under disability, such as a miner or a lunatic, and the relationship of the parties and the circumstances of the case are such as would, in equity, fasten on the person so entering into possession, a trust actual or constructive, the possession of such person would be presumed to be that of a bailiff or agent of the person under disability, and not adverse to him. Thus, the possession of a de facto guardian would be presumed to be on behalf of the minor as his bailiff or guardian and not adverse to him as laid down in the cases of Thomas v. Thomas (1855) 110 R R 107 (M) and Ma Nagwe Naing v. Maung Tha Maung AIR 1929 PC 55 (Z8) as also in the cases of Ghulam Mohammad v. Ghulam Husain AIR 1932 PC 81 (Z9) and Howard v. Earl of Shrewsbury (1874) 43 LJ Ch. 495 (Z10).
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

G.F.C. Ariff vs Rai Jadunath Majumdar Bahadur on 23 January, 1931

" .... ...I do not think it is necessary to consider whether the defendant can ever be held in law to be able to prescribe against a true owner his rights as a mortgagee, but if it were necessary to decide this matter, I would have respectfully agreed with the observations, which have fallen from my Lord the Chief Justice on this point in the judgment just delivered by him. I cannot understand how by a mere oral assertion a person can acquire rights as against a true owner as a mortgagee, it is necessary to have a contract to that effect either oral or unregistered where the amount advanced is below Rs: 100, and necessarily a registered document where the money advanced is above Rs. 100. If the mere oral declaration of the parties would be .held sufficient in law to establish the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee, in the latter case, in my opinion, it would be stultifying and openly violating the statute. The reason for the rule is that the title must be based either upon a contract, express or implied, or upon statement of fact grounding an estoppel: per Lord Russell of Killowen in Ariff v. Jadunath Majumdar, 58 Ind App 91: (AIR 1931 PC 79) (D)".
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 135 - Full Document

Vadlamannaty Bala Tripura Sundaramma vs Secretary Of State And Ors. on 16 August, 1927

In the same way when a mortgage is void and, therefore, the possession of a mortgagee on the mortgaged property under such void mortgage is adverse to the mortgagor, what the mortgagee prescribes for in such property by his adverse possession is the title of a mortgagee only and not the title of an absolute owner (Tripura Sundaramma v. Secretary of State AIR 1928 Mad 282 (X), Appamma v. Ohinnaveadu.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Purusottam Das And Anr. vs S.M. Desouza And Anr. on 16 December, 1949

Further, I think there is no reason why the limited interest of a zarpeshgi mortgage like any other interest in property cannot be acquired by prescription under Section 28, of the Limitation Act After all, a mortgage is not only a contractual security for loan but is also an interest in the immovable property and as such prescription can be as much a root of title to the limited interest of a zarpeshgi mortgage as a contractual document satisfying the requirements of the Transfer of Property Act read with the Indian Contract Act, Purusottam Das v. Desouza AIR 1950 Orissa 213 (Z7).
Orissa High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Ma Ngwe Naing vs Maung Tha Maung on 30 November, 1928

son enters into possession of property belonging to A person under disability, such as a miner or a lunatic, and the relationship of the parties and the circumstances of the case are such as would, in equity, fasten on the person so entering into possession, a trust actual or constructive, the possession of such person would be presumed to be that of a bailiff or agent of the person under disability, and not adverse to him. Thus, the possession of a de facto guardian would be presumed to be on behalf of the minor as his bailiff or guardian and not adverse to him as laid down in the cases of Thomas v. Thomas (1855) 110 R R 107 (M) and Ma Nagwe Naing v. Maung Tha Maung AIR 1929 PC 55 (Z8) as also in the cases of Ghulam Mohammad v. Ghulam Husain AIR 1932 PC 81 (Z9) and Howard v. Earl of Shrewsbury (1874) 43 LJ Ch. 495 (Z10).
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Ghulam Mohammad vs Ghulam Hussain on 14 December, 1931

son enters into possession of property belonging to A person under disability, such as a miner or a lunatic, and the relationship of the parties and the circumstances of the case are such as would, in equity, fasten on the person so entering into possession, a trust actual or constructive, the possession of such person would be presumed to be that of a bailiff or agent of the person under disability, and not adverse to him. Thus, the possession of a de facto guardian would be presumed to be on behalf of the minor as his bailiff or guardian and not adverse to him as laid down in the cases of Thomas v. Thomas (1855) 110 R R 107 (M) and Ma Nagwe Naing v. Maung Tha Maung AIR 1929 PC 55 (Z8) as also in the cases of Ghulam Mohammad v. Ghulam Husain AIR 1932 PC 81 (Z9) and Howard v. Earl of Shrewsbury (1874) 43 LJ Ch. 495 (Z10).
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1   2 Next