Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 14 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors on 30 September, 2011
25.In fact, the first appellate Court, while allowing the interlocutory application filed by the respondent/defendant to receive the additional document, has not even properly considered the plea of adverse possession, whether the respondent/defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than the statutory period to the knowledge of the appellant/plaintiff. When none of the evidence either oral or documentary to prove possession and enjoyment was produced by the respondent/defendant either before the trial Court or the first appellate Court, in my considered opinion, the finding of the first appellate Court holding that the respondent/defendant has perfected the title by adverse possession is wholly unjustifiable in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in STATE OF HARYANA V. MUKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS (2011 (8) MLJ 768) wherein the Apex Court has strongly advocated against the plea of adverse possession in the following paragraphs:
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Ors on 23 September, 2008
In Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and others (supra) case, this Court ultimately observed as under:
P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma And Ors on 24 April, 2007
"35.A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner. It is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish adverse possession. Though we got this law of adverse possession from the British, it is important to note that these days English Courts are taking a very negative view towards the law of adverse possession. The English law was amended and changed substantially to reflect these changes, particularly in light of the view that property is a human right adopted by the European Commission. This Court in P.T.Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (supra) observed that to understand the true nature of adverse possession, Fairweather v. St Marylebone Property Co. (1962) 2 WLR 1020 ; (1962) 2 All ER 288 can be considered where House of Lords referring to Taylor v. Twinberrow (1930) 2 K.B. 16 termed adverse possession as a negative and consequential right effected only because somebody else's positive right to access the court is barred by operation of law. As against the rights of the paper-owner, in the context of adverse possession, there evolves a set of competing rights in favour of the adverse possessor who has, for a long period of time, cared for the land, developed it, as against the owner of the property who has ignored the property.
Meenakshi And Three Ors. vs Muniandi Panikkan And Anr. on 26 August, 1914
"12....It seems to us that having regard to this trend of legislation reflecting the changing social approach to succession, we will be justified in interpreting the word daughter in the original text as including an illegitimate daughter as well. We are also of opinion that once an illegitimate daughter is an heir, as we hold she is, to succeed to her mother's stridhana property, so long as she is available, the son, who is not in the nearer line of stridhana heirs, cannot have preference and exclude an illegitimate daughter. On that view, we are of opinion that Meenakshi v. Muniandi, should be overruled.