Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)Article 64 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mst. Kirpal Kaur vs Bachan Singh And Others on 15 November, 1957
37. In Mst. Kirpal Kaur v. Bachan Singh, AIR 1958 SC 199 there was no evidence of any arrangement with the respondents under which Harnam Kaur could be said to have taken possession of the lands. It was held that her possession must be taken to have been adverse to the collaterals.
Ulfat Rai vs Sm. Kamla Devi And Ors. on 20 December, 1948
In Ulfat Rai v. Kamla Devi, AIR 1949 All 458 it was held that where on the death of member of undivided Hindu family, his widow assumes possession of the property of a portion thereof, there is no presumption that she has allowed this for her mere consolation or in lieu of maintenance and unless the surviving member proves an arrangement making her possession permissive, it would be adverse possession.
Bharit And Ors. vs The Hon'Ble Board Of Revenue, U.P., At ... on 15 September, 1972
In Bharit v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1973 All 201 it was held that if the document of sale is invalid, the transferee gets no title under it. His possession will not be referable to any legal title. It will be adverse to the transferor.
Radha Rani Bhargava vs Hanuman Prasad Bhargava on 20 April, 1965
In Radha Rani v. Hanuman Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 216, it was held that in case of alienation by Hindu widow, without legal necessity, reversioners are not bound to institute a declaratory suit during the lifetime of the widow. They can sue the alienee after her death for possession of the alienated property treating the alienation as a nullity without the court's intervention.
S. M. Karim vs Mst. Bibi Sakina on 14 February, 1964
In S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254 it was held that adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at least to show when possession became adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected may be found.
Bindhyachal Chand And Ors. vs Ram Gharib Chand And Ors. on 3 May, 1934
25. Sri A. N. Verma placed reliance on Kunji v. Niyaz Husain, AIR 1934 All 262, Bindhyachal v. Ram Gharib, AIR 1934 All 993 (FB) and Qadir Bux v. Ramchand, AIR 1970 All 289 (FB) in support of the contention that on proof of title, a suit can be dismissed only if the defendant establishes adverse possession. He, however, submitted that as the suit was filed on 25th April 1964, Limitation Act, 1963 applies.
Mangal Singh & Ors vs Shrimati Rattno & Anr on 6 April, 1967
In Mangal Singh v. Smt. Rattno, AIR 1967 SC 1786 it was held that the words "possessed by" in Section 14(1) are not intended to apply to a case of mere possession without title.
Bai Vajia (Dead) By L. Rs vs Thakorbhai Chelabhai And Ors on 20 February, 1979
67. Sri Ravi Kant placed reliance on Bai Vajia v. Thakorbhai, AIR 1979 SC 993.