Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (1.80 seconds)The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950
Section 90 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908
Mandal Revenue Officer vs Goundla Venkaiah & Anr on 6 January, 2010
21. If the land was settled in the name of Raghu Nath Das before vesting
and he was in cultivating possession of the land, he should have been accepted
as tenant, rent roll prepared in his name, rent accepted and rent receipt would
have been issued in his name. There is no such evidence on record. On the
contrary, the evidences are to the effect that the said land was never recorded
in the name of Raghu Nath Das but in the name of anaabad Bihar Sarkar and
the possession of Raghu Nath Das has been shown to be illegal. This
continued in both the surveys of 1962-63 and 1983. Land encroachment
proceedings were drawn against the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-interest.
Dropping of any encroachment proceeding cannot be regarded as admission
on the part of the State of acquiesce to adverse possession, as held in Mandal
Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah (supra).
P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma And Ors on 24 April, 2007
While dwelling on the characteristic of adverse possession Hon'ble
Supreme Court held in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, (2007) 6
SCC 59
"Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption that
the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor on the
acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in
possession".
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs Manjit Kaur on 7 August, 2019
The proposition of law is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex
court rendered in Ravinder Kaur Grewal Vs Manjit Kaur Civil Appeal
No.7764 of 2014.