Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
K.S. Ramachandran Nair And Ors. vs Samy Pillai Gouri Pillai And Ors. on 9 April, 1974 cites

P. Lakshmi Reddy vs L. Lakshmi Reddy on 5 December, 1956

7. The learned Judge was of the view that the possession of Govinda Pillai in pursuance of Ext. D-l agreement was that of a 'tenant' under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements' Act, 1958. We doubt if this would be altogether right having regard to Govinda Pillai's possession as a co-owner in regard to common property, in pursuance of an agreement. For the purpose of deciding this appeal, we need not venture a final opinion on this point, and wish to express none. As noticed by the learned Judge, the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy (AIR 1957 SC 314) has stressed the need to prove knowledge and ouster before adverse possession can be established among co-heirs. In Freeman on "Co-tenancy and Partition", IInd Edition, it is stated that each co-tenant may convey his moiety at pleasure without the consent or knowledge of either of his companions in interest, and that in the case of tenants-in-common, the grantee is substituted as a tenant-in-common having the same rights and subiect to the same obligations as his grantor (See page 270. Article 19-4).
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 252 - B Jagannadhadas - Full Document

Kunjamma Cicily vs Kasim Beevi Sulaikha Beevi on 28 June, 1968

Besides, as pointed out by Krishna lyer J. in the judgment under appeal, a Full Bench of this Court in Kunjamma Cicily v. Sulaikha Beevi, ILR, (1968) ,2 Ker 366 = (AIR 1969 Ker 293) (PB) has considered the question of adverse possession of co-ownership property, outstanding on usufructuary mortgage. It was observed by the Full Bench (vide paragraph 19) that the mere execution of documents by two of the co-owners on the footing that they are full owners of the property, cannot deprive the plaintiff co-owner of his rights so long as be was not party to the documents, and it had not been shown by other circumstances, that he had knowledge of these transactions, and hostile assertion. This was what the Full Bench observed :
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Subah Lal vs Fateh Mohamad on 1 March, 1932

"19. It is no doubt true that Exts. D-3 and D-4 contain recitals to the effect that Asanaru and Abdul Kader are the jenmis of the property and that they have full right; to deal with the same. The plaintiff was not a party to these documents nor has our attention been drawn to any circumstances from which it may be legitimately inferred that the plaintiff had knowledge of these transactions and the hostile assertions or was at least under a duty to enquire about them. The following observations of Niamatullah J. in Subah Lal v. Fateh Mohammed (AIR 1932 All 393 at p. 397) may be usefully extracted in this context :
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Joseph vs John on 1 June, 1959

8. But the strongest reliance was placed upon the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in Joseph v. John 1959 Ker LT 630 = (AIR 1960 Ker 27), affirmed on appeal by a Division Bench of this Court in John v. Joseph (ILR 1964 Ker 211). On the actual facts, the decision is distinguishable. In execution of a decree against the widow and one of the sons of one deceased Thommen. Thom-man's entire property of thirty cents had been purchased in court-auction and taken possession of, in 1112 M. E. by the 1st defendant, a stranger. Plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 were the other children of the deceased Thommen who sued in 1127 for recovery of possession of the property. It was held that the plaintiffs' right was barred by adverse possession. This was clearly a case where the entire body of co-owners had been ousted by a stranger who got into possession through process of court in 1112 and continued for over the statutory period of twelve years.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Naina Muhammad Rowther vs Periappa Rowther Alias Muhammad Abdul ... on 24 March, 1941

This passage and the other relevant authorities were noticed by one of us in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Muthu Rowther v. Muhammed Ali Rowther (1970 Ker LT 1043) where, the question raised was the court-fee payable by an assignee of the rights of two Mohammedan Co-sharers who sought partition, against the assignee of the rights of the third. The judgment noticed the provisions of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, under which the transferee from a co-owner in India acquires, as to the share transferred, the transferor's right to joint possession. In the light of these principles, it is difficult to posit that the possession of Govinda Pil-lai or the transferees became adverse to Narayana Pillai and the plaintiffs.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Konnan Sanku Of Moothedathu And Anr. vs Kalyani Parvathi Amma And Ors. on 17 August, 1962

In Konnan Sanku v. Kalyani Parvathy Animal, 1962 Ker LT 881 = (AIR 1963 Ker 249), the same learned Judge who decided 1959 Ker LT 630 = (AIR 1960 Ker 27) held that the execution of a mortgage of the whole property under which the mortgagee enters into possession, operates as an ouster of the other co-owners, and to their knowledge; and that where some co-owners usufructuarily mortgage an item of property and the mortgagee enters into possession, a suit to recover the share therein by the other co-owners is barred by Article 144 at the end of the fourteen years of such possession. It was contended before the learned Judge that the mortgagee could prescribe only for a mortgage right and that the equity of redemption would not be barred.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1