Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.38 seconds)Shri Arjan Dev vs Shri Om Parkash on 28 November, 1991
8. The case before Delhi High Court Arjan Dev's case - (supra) was also regarding permissive use and adverse possession and hence it was held that these two pleadings cannot co-exist together.
Smt. Indubai And Anr. vs Jawaharlal And Anr. on 21 August, 1989
9. So far as the decision in the case of Smt. Indubai and Anr. v. Jawaharlal and Anr., is concerned, the Court has examined paragraphs 8 and 8(a) of the plaint and arrived at a conclusion in paragraph No. 7 of the judgment that the amendment in paragraph No. 8(a) was inserted by plaintiff to clarify nature of entry of defendant on the plot. This was held to be natural conduct on the part of plaintiff, who had initially claimed defendant to be encroacher and subsequently, it was explained that initially he was permitted to occupy but lateron he continued to occupy. In fact, in this case also, learned Judge observed that the law permits alternative relief or inconsistent allegations, but it does not permit inconsistent pleas.
Mudra Salt And Chemical Industries vs The Collector, Dist. Thane And Ors. on 23 March, 2001
In the case of Mudra Salt and Chemical Industries v. Collector, Thane, 2001(3) Mh.L.J. 151, while considering the application for amendment, this Court allowed the amendment. The suit was filed for negative declaration based on title that defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit property. Further declaration was sought that allotment of the said land by defendant No. 1 in favour of other defendants was illegal and not binding on plaintiff. Defendants denied the claim of plaintiff. Prior to framing of issues, plaintiff moved application for amendment to the effect that plaintiffs were owners of the suit land by adverse possession. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that inconsistent plea was sought to be introduced. While allowing the revision petition, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that it is open for the party to raise even mutually inconsistent pleas.
Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
1