Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Thomas Cook (India) Limited vs Hotel Imperial And Ors. on 9 January, 2006
"28. The expressions 'due process of law', 'due course of
law' and 'recourse to law' have been interchangeably used
in the decisions referred to above which say that the
settled possession of even a person in unlawful
possession cannot be disturbed 'forcibly' by the true
owner taking law in his own hands. All these expressions,
however, mean the same thing--ejectment from settled
possession can only be had by recourse to a court of law.
Clearly, 'due process of law' or 'due course of law', here,
simply mean that a person in settled possession cannot
be ejected without a court of law having adjudicated upon
his rights qua the true owner.
Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs Manjit Kaur on 7 August, 2019
(h) In support of his submission, he relied upon the
judgment of the Apex court in the case of
Raveendra Kaur, Greval and others Vs Manjeet
Kaur and others reported (2019) 8 SCC 729.
Relying upon the said judgment, the learned counsel
for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff having
been in possession of the property for over 12 years
has perfected his title by way of adverse possession
and in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court,
the plaintiff is entitled to seek declaration of his title
having perfected the same by way of adverse
possession.
Subhaga & Ors vs Shobha & Ors on 7 July, 2006
(i) He also relied upon the Judgment of Apex Court in
the case of Subhaga and others Vs Shobha and
others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 466, to contend
that once the Commissioner had identified the
property by the boundaries, the trial Court ought to
have accepted the same.
Narasimha Shastry vs Mangesha Devaru on 21 September, 1987
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Narasimha Shastri Vs Mangesha Devaru,
reported in ILR 1988 554 to contend in
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S. M. Karim vs Mst. Bibi Sakina on 14 February, 1964
owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued
over the statutory period. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina [AIR
1964 SC 1254] , Parsinni v. Sukhi [(1993) 4 SCC 375] and D.N.
Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka [(1997) 7 SCC 567].)
Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus
possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are
the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of
this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of
law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who
claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he
came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his
possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to
the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and
Parsinni (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. vs Sukhi And Ors. on 15 September, 1993
owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued
over the statutory period. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina [AIR
1964 SC 1254] , Parsinni v. Sukhi [(1993) 4 SCC 375] and D.N.
Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka [(1997) 7 SCC 567].)
Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus
possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are
the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of
this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of
law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who
claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he
came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his
possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to
the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and
D.N. Venkatarayappa & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 9 July, 1997
owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued
over the statutory period. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina [AIR
1964 SC 1254] , Parsinni v. Sukhi [(1993) 4 SCC 375] and D.N.
Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka [(1997) 7 SCC 567].)
Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus
possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are
the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of
this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of
law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who
claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he
came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his
possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to
the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and
Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma vs Smt Raj Kumari Sharma And Ors on 1 December, 1995
(e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading
adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is
trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to
clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his
adverse possession. [Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj
Kumari Sharma [(1996) 8 SCC 128] .]