Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Mohan Lal (Deceased) Throughhis Lrs. ... vs Mirza Abdul Gaffar & Anr on 12 December, 1995
34. The aforesaid judgment in turn relied upon the judgment
in Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar [(1996) 1 SCC 639],
which observed in para 4 as under:
Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs Manjit Kaur on 7 August, 2019
"31. We also find that the reliance placed by learned counsel
for the appellants in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit
Kaur [(2019) 8 SCC 729] is also misplaced. The question
which arose for consideration before the three Judge Bench
was whether, a suit could be maintained for declaration of
title and for permanent injunction seeking protection on a
plea of adverse possession, or that it was an instrument of
defence in a suit filed against such a person. In fact, if one
may say, there was, for a long time a consistent view of the
Court that the plea could only be of shield and not a sword.
The judgment changed this legal position by opining that a
plea to retain (supra) possession could be managed by the
ripening of title by way of adverse possession. However, to
3
2020 (15) SCC 218
11
Dr.GRR, J
SA No.497 of 2005
constitute such adverse possession, the three classic
requirements, which need to co-exist were again
emphasized, 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.
Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004
In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Union of India [(2004)
10 SCC 779] case, it has been clearly set out that a plaintiff
filing a title over the property must specifically plead it.
When such a plea of adverse possession is projected, it is
inherent in the nature of it that someone else is the owner of
the property. In that context, it was observed in para 12 that
"....the pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually
inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the
(supra) former is renounced"
Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By Its ... vs Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society ... on 6 September, 2002
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and others v.
Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others 4 held that:
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs Thukalan Paulo Avira & Ors on 12 September, 1958
17. At the outset, let us examine the legal position with
regard to whom the burden of proof lies in a suit for
declaration of title and possession. This Court in Maran Mar
4
(2014) 2 SCC 269
16
Dr.GRR, J
SA No.497 of 2005
Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira [AIR1959 SC
31] observed that:
Nagar Palika, Jind vs Jagat Singh, Advocate on 28 March, 1995
In Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh [(1995) 3 SCC
426], this Court held as under:
C.V. Narayan Reddy vs Katanguru Raghava Reddy And Anr. on 10 April, 1979
24. The learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs relied upon
a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.V.
19
Dr.GRR, J
SA No.497 of 2005
Narayan Reddy v. Katanguru Raghava Reddy and another 5 ,
wherein it was held that:
Gurudwara Sahib vs Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr on 16 September, 2013
(Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala &
Anr., (2014) 1 SCC 669)). The Courts below also should
have seen that courts can grant only that relief which is
claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint and such relief can be
granted only on the pleadings but not beyond it. In other
words, courts cannot travel beyond the pleadings for
granting any relief. This principle is fully applied to the facts
of this case against the plaintiff.