Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)
C.Selvam vs P.Chellamuthu (Died) ...Plaintiff / ... on 30 August, 2022 cites

Radhamoni Debi vs The Collector Of Khulna And Ors. on 24 March, 1900

It was held at page 137 as follows— “As to what constitutes adverse possession, a subject which formed the topic of some discussion in the case, their Lordships adopt the language of Lord Robertson in delivering the judgment of the Board in Radhamoni Debi v. Collector of Khulna 1900 L.R. 27 I.A. 136 at 140=27 Cal. 943 (P.C.), where His Lordship said that the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor”. The classical requirement is that the ‘possession should be nee vi nec clamnec precario. Mr. Dunne for the Crown appeared to desiderate that the adverse possession should be shown to have been brought to the knowledge of the Crown, but in their Lordships' opinion there is no authority for this requirement. It is sufficient that the possession be overt and without any attempt at concealment so that the person against whom time is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14 running ought, if he exercises due vigilance, to be aware of what is happening. If the rights of the Crown have been openly usurped it cannot be heard to plead that the act was not brought to its notice.”
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 107 - Full Document

Kunhamma @ Lakshmi Ammas Children & Anr vs Akkali Purushothaman & Ors on 12 April, 2007

The other decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is Sadasiva Gounder and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15 another v. Purushothaman, 2000 (3) M.L.J. 785, in which K. Sampath, J has held that ‘animus’ in the legal parlance would mean mind, design, will, intention, disposition and to claim with regard to possession, the term is animus possidendi, which means the intention of possession and the person claiming adverse possession must intend in his mind to possess a property as his own and it does not mean that he must be conscious that the property belongs to somebody else and all that is required by the term ‘animus’ in the context of adverse possession is that the person must have intention to possess the property as his own and I agree with the above view of the learned Judge.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 40 - H S Bedi - Full Document

Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs Manjit Kaur on 7 August, 2019

“14. As to whether the plaintiff can claim title on the basis of adverse possession, this Court in a judgment Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur [Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, (2019) 8 SCC 729 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 453] has held as under: (SCC p. 777, para 60) “60. The adverse possession requires all the three classic https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16 requirements to co-exist at the same time, namely, nec vi i.e. adequate in continuity, nec clam i.e. adequate in publicity and nec precario i.e. adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge. Visible, notorious and peaceful so that if the owner does not take care to know notorious facts, knowledge is attributed to him on the basis that but for due diligence he would have known it. Adverse possession cannot be decreed on a title which is not pleaded. Animus possidendi under hostile colour of title is required. Trespasser's long possession is not synonymous with adverse possession. Trespasser's possession is construed to be on behalf of the owner, the casual user does not constitute adverse possession. The owner can take possession from a trespasser at any point in time. Possessor looks after the property, protects it and in case of agricultural property by and large the concept is that actual tiller should own the land who works by dint of his hard labour and makes the land cultivable. The legislature in various States confers rights based on possession.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 63 - Cited by 281 - A Mishra - Full Document

The Secretary, Taliparamba Education ... vs Moothedath Mallisseri Illath M.N. & Ors on 3 March, 1997

“Interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below by the High Court under Section 100 CPC must be avoided unless warranted by compelling reasons. In any case, the High Court is not expected to reappreciate the evidence just to replace the findings of the lower courts. … Even assuming that another view is possible on a reappreciation of the same evidence, that should not have been done by the High Court as it cannot be said that the view taken by the first appellate court was based on no material.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19 “15. And again in Secy., Taliparamba Education Society v. Moothedath Mallisseri Illath M.N. [(1997) 4 SCC 484] this Court held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 31 - Full Document
1   2 Next