Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.58 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Madan Lal Kaushik vs Shree Yog Mayaji Temple & Ors. on 3 March, 2011
It has been held in Madan Lal Kaushik Vs. Shree
Yog Mayagi Temple (Supra) that, "For a plea of ownership on the
CS No. 194/12
Raghubir Singh & Ors. Vs. Hans Raj Page 19 of 29
basis of adverse possession, the first and foremost condition is that the
property must belong to a person other than the person pleading his title
on the basis of adverse possession." As such, the mere fact that the
defendant has come forward with a plea of adverse possession implies
that he admits the plaintiffs to be true owner of the suit property.
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mrs. Adarsh Kaur Gill vs Smt. Surjit Kaur Gill & Ors. on 15 January, 2010
32. So far authority at Serial No. 3 is concerned, there is no
deviation of the law laid down in the said authority that a judgment on
an admission u/o XII rule 6 CPC is matter of discretion and not a
matter of right and when a case involves question which cannot be
conveniently disposed of on a motion under the rule the court may in
the exercise of discretion, refuse the motion. However, the facts in the
present case are different.
Association For Voluntary Action vs The Child Trust & Another on 24 September, 2013
It has been held in Association for Voluntary
Action Vs. The Child Trust & Ano. 2013 IX AD DELHI 180
(supra) that admission can be inferred on vague and evasive denial in
written statement while answering specific pleas raised by plaintiff.
Admission even can be inferred from facts and circumstances of case.
Vishal Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Dda And Ors. on 26 May, 2006
26. The defendant has claimed his ownership by way of
adverse possession on the premise that since nobody came forward to
collect rentals from him for the last 17 years, therefore he has become
owner by way of adverse possession. The defendant also claims that
suit filed by him seeking declaration that he be declared as owner of
the suit premises by way of adverse possession is pending and
CS No. 194/12
Raghubir Singh & Ors. Vs. Hans Raj Page 21 of 29
therefore present suit filed by the plaintiffs cannot be decreed at this
stage without trial. However, in my considered opinion merely because
the plaintiffs did not come forward to collect the rentals from the
defendant in respect of the suit premises, the defendant cannot be said
to have become owner of the suit premises by way of adverse
possession. It has been held in Vishal Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DDA
(supra) that, "By not paying the rent a tenant does not become a person
in adverse possession. If the tenant has not paid the rent, it is default on
the part of the tenant."
Gurudwara Sahib vs Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr on 16 September, 2013
It has been held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurudwara Sahib Vs. Gram Panchayat
Village Sirthala (supra) that, "Even if the plaintiff is found to be in
adverse possession, it cannot seek a declaration to the effect that such
adverse possession has matured into ownership. Only if proceedings
filed against the appellant and appellant is arrayed as defendant then it
can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence."