Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Kanthammal vs Bysani Sriramulu Chetti And Anr. on 12 September, 1986
In KANTHAMMAL VS. BYSANI SRIRAMULU CHETTI AND ANOTHER (1987(1) MLJ 300) it has been held that,
"the mere fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property will not enable her/him to get an injunction as against the defendant. It is no doubt true that a person in possession can resist the whole world, but the exception is the true owner. A person in possession without any title cannot get any relief against a person who has got a better title."
Kammavar Sangam Through Its Secretary ... vs Mani Janagarajan on 19 July, 1999
In KAMMAVAR SANGAM THROUGH ITS SECRETARY R. KRISHNASAMY VS. MANI JANAGARAJAN it has been held as follows:
Guruvammal And Another vs Subbiah Naicker And Others on 24 September, 1999
In GURUVAMMAL AND ANOTHER VS. SUBBIAH NAICKER AND OTHERS relied on by the learned Counsel, I have held that patta does not constitute a document of title, that the plaintiff in that case would rely on an order of Tahsildar for transfer of patta without producing the material to show as to how the Tahsildar came to such a conclusion and that mutation of entries is done to enable the State to collect revenue from persons who are in possession of property and that it could not be relied on for granting relief.
Fakirbhai Bhagwandas And Anr. vs Maganlal Haribhai And Anr. on 5 October, 1950
I referred to a decision in FAKIRBHAI VS. MAGANLAL , which had followed the Privy Council decision in ISMAIL ARIFF VS. MOHAMED GHOUSE (ILR 20 Calcutta 834) wherein it was held that,
"lawful possession of land was sufficient evidence of right as owner as against a person who had no title whatever and who was a mere trespasser and that the former could obtain a declaratory decree and an injunction restraining the wrong doer."
Ramkrishna Panda vs Arjuno Padhano And Ors. on 15 January, 1962
In RAMKRISHNA PANDA VS. ARJUNO PADHANO AND OTHERS it has been held that,
"where the entry in the records of rights shows the suit lands in the name of the plaintiff,the onus is on the defendant to prove that the said entry in favour of the plaintiff is not correct."
Daulat Singh And Anr. vs Tulsiram And Anr. on 30 June, 1989
In DAULAT SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. TULSIRAM AND ANOTHER , it has been held that,
"suit for restoration of possession and permanent injunction can succeed by the plaintiff proving continuous possession prior to dispossession and that it is not necessary to establish title. A trespasser has no right to disturb peaceful possession of long time of any person on any suit property and he cannot reap the benefit of his illegal act."
1