Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)
Siya Sharan vs Taj Singh(Dead)Thro.Lrs.Smt.Kamla ... on 8 January, 2024 cites

P.Periasami (Dead) By Lrs vs P. Periathambi And Others on 11 October, 1995

12. The plea of ownership simpliciter is based on the concept of title, which one may acquire through various sources like succession, gift, will, sale, exchange, grant etc. etc. and the person in possession is essentially to be treated as being in lawful possession. While on the other hand when the plea of adverse possession is projected inherent is the plea that someone else is the ownership of the property. (See: P. Periasami (dead) by L.Rs. vs. P. Periathambi and others (1995) 6 SCC 523. Having said so, it can safely be concluded that the pleas based on title and simultaneously on adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 107 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004

27. It is also pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff has not pleaded necessary averments to establish the plea of adverse possession as indicated in case of S.M. Karim (Supra) and Karnataka Board of Wakf (Supra) whereas such averments were necessary to be pleaded in clear terms so as to be proved accordingly by adducing evidence. But in this case, neither appropriate averments made with regard to the adverse possession in the plaint nor the sufficient evidence as regards each ingredient of adverse possession has been adduced before the trial Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 638 - Full Document

P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma And Ors on 24 April, 2007

"9. It is more than settled that long possession is not necessarily adverse possession. What would constitute adverse possession has repeatedly been subject matter of the courts. However, this concept was dealt in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Munichikkanna 10 Reddy and others vs. Revamma and others (2007) 6 SCC 59, wherein, it was held as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 438 - S B Sinha - Full Document

S. M. Karim vs Mst. Bibi Sakina on 14 February, 1964

27. It is also pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff has not pleaded necessary averments to establish the plea of adverse possession as indicated in case of S.M. Karim (Supra) and Karnataka Board of Wakf (Supra) whereas such averments were necessary to be pleaded in clear terms so as to be proved accordingly by adducing evidence. But in this case, neither appropriate averments made with regard to the adverse possession in the plaint nor the sufficient evidence as regards each ingredient of adverse possession has been adduced before the trial Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 382 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1   2 Next