Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.30 seconds)J.S. Basappa vs Provincial Government Of Madras (Now ... on 12 March, 1957
31. The decision of this Court in J.S. Basappa v. Provincial Government of Madras (supra) and the decision of the Punjab High Court in Wallu Ram v. Union
of India (supra) do not in any manner help the appellants.
Marwari Kumhar And Ors vs Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri And Anr on 10 August, 2000
In Marwari Kumar v. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri (supra) also, the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier view and observed that in the absence of proof as to time and manner in which possession got converted into open, hostile and adverse the claim for adverse possession could not be upheld.
Achal Reddi vs Ramakrishna Reddiar And Ors on 17 November, 1989
In Achal Reddi v. Ramakrishna Reddiar (supra), the Supreme Court while considering this aspect of the matter held:
State Of Rajasthan vs Harphool Singh (Dead) Through His L.Rs on 4 May, 2000
17. Here, a reference may be made to State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (supra), wherein it was observed:
The State Of Madras vs C.P. Agencies And Anr. on 25 August, 1959
In State of Madras v. C.P. Agencies, (supra), the Supreme Court was concerned
with the validity of a suit notice under Section 80 CPC. The suit notice was indeed issued. The question was whether it is valid. It is not a case where the plaintiff in one of his replies/ explanations to the Government stated that he would oppose any action by the Government.
Wallu Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 20 March, 1959
31. The decision of this Court in J.S. Basappa v. Provincial Government of Madras (supra) and the decision of the Punjab High Court in Wallu Ram v. Union
of India (supra) do not in any manner help the appellants.
Mohan Lal (Deceased) Throughhis Lrs. ... vs Mirza Abdul Gaffar & Anr on 12 December, 1995
In Roop Singh (supra), the apex Court again considered the issue and after referring to its earlier decisions in Thakur Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar, and Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar, , observed thus:
The Limitation Act, 1963
Municipal Council, Udaipur And Anr. vs Kishan Lal And Ors. on 9 December, 1970
In the decision reported in Secretary of State for India in Council v. Debendra Lal Khan, (1993) 61 IA 78 = 1934 All LJ 153 (PC), strongly relied for the respondents, the Court laid down further that it is sufficient that the possession be overt and without any attempt at concealment so that the person against whom time is running, ought if he exercises due vigilance, to be aware of what is happening and if the rights of the crown have been openly usurped it cannot be heard to plead that the fact was not brought to its notice.