Premji Ratansey Shah And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 July, 1994
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter
of Premji Ratansey Shah vs. Union of India, 1994 SCC (5) 547 held as
under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.78 seconds)Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke And Ors. vs Puna Municipal Corporation And Anr. on 24 January, 1995
In the mater of Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. The Puna Municipal
Corporation, (1995) 3 SCC 33 it is held as under:
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs A. Viswam (Dead) By Lrs on 9 February, 1996
In the mater of Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. A. Viswam(dead) by
Lrs, 1996 (8) SCC 259, it is held as under:
Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 1996
In the mater of Ramniklal Bhutta vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997
(1) SCC 134 it is held as under:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Subramaniaswamy Temple, Ratnagiri vs V. Kanna Goundar(Dead) By Lrs on 14 May, 2008
21.(i) Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff places reliance
upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of
Subramanya Swamy Temple, Ratnagiri Vs. V. Kanna Gounder
(Dead) by LRs. (2009) 3 SCC 306 and Rame Gowda (Dead) By LRS.
Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) By LRs.
Behram Tejani & Ors vs Azeem Jagani on 6 January, 2017
(ii) In the recent judgment in the case of Behram Tejani and
Others Vs. Azeem Jagani (2017) 2 SCC 759 it has been held by the
RFA No.661/2017 Page 21 of 23
Supreme Court that long possession of a gratuitous licensee does not
create any right or interest in the property, and therefore, long
possession of a gratuitous licensee will not entitle such a person to
grant of injunction against dispossession. In the present case, it is seen
that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove his right/title in the suit
land as the case of adverse possession pleaded has failed. Therefore
mere long possession without any right/title of the appellant/plaintiff
will not entitle the appellant/plaintiff to the discretionary relief of
injunction.