Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (3.46 seconds)
Nagappan Renjith Mohan vs Parvathi Savithiri on 3 April, 2009 cites

Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996

In the decision in Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty ((1996) 6 SCC 166) the Apex Court has held only that the High Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below by re-appreciating the evidence and arriving at another possible view; that by virtue of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below must be avoided unless warranted by compelling reasons; that the High Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence just to replace the findings of the lower courts and that SA 40 & 75 of 1994 -26- even assuming another view is possible on a re- appreciation of the same evidence, the High Court cannot replace its own findings in the place of the concurrent findings of the courts below when it cannot be said that the view taken by the courts below was based on no material.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 121 - Full Document

Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs Seshammal on 8 May, 2006

14. The learned counsel forgets the fact that even when findings are concurrently entered into by SA 40 & 75 of 1994 -23- the courts below, it does not preclude the High Court from interfering with the said concurrent judgments when the judgments so entered into were not based on any evidence and were perverse and the conclusions arrived at by the courts below were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable to the facts of the case or contrary to law as pronounced by the Apex Court or was erroneous being based upon inadmissible evidence or on no evidence. It is enough that to be a substantial question of law, it must be debatable, not previously settled by the law of land or a binding precedent and should be such that answer to it would have a material bearing as to the rights of the parties before court. Similarly, a substantial question of law would arise where the legal position is clear, but, the courts below have decided the matter ignoring or acting contrary to such principle and has arrived at findings on wrong application or on a SA 40 & 75 of 1994 -24- misunderstanding of the position of law, as could be understood from the decisions of the Apex Court cited by the learned counsel himself, viz., the decisions reported in M.Nadar Kesavan Nadar v. Narayanan Nadar Kunjan Nadar ((2000) 10 SCC 244), Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal ((2006) 5 SCC 545), Govindaraju v. Mariamman ((2005) 2 SCC 500) and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar ((1999) 3 SCC 722).
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 619 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Govindaraju vs Mariamman on 4 February, 2005

14. The learned counsel forgets the fact that even when findings are concurrently entered into by SA 40 & 75 of 1994 -23- the courts below, it does not preclude the High Court from interfering with the said concurrent judgments when the judgments so entered into were not based on any evidence and were perverse and the conclusions arrived at by the courts below were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable to the facts of the case or contrary to law as pronounced by the Apex Court or was erroneous being based upon inadmissible evidence or on no evidence. It is enough that to be a substantial question of law, it must be debatable, not previously settled by the law of land or a binding precedent and should be such that answer to it would have a material bearing as to the rights of the parties before court. Similarly, a substantial question of law would arise where the legal position is clear, but, the courts below have decided the matter ignoring or acting contrary to such principle and has arrived at findings on wrong application or on a SA 40 & 75 of 1994 -24- misunderstanding of the position of law, as could be understood from the decisions of the Apex Court cited by the learned counsel himself, viz., the decisions reported in M.Nadar Kesavan Nadar v. Narayanan Nadar Kunjan Nadar ((2000) 10 SCC 244), Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal ((2006) 5 SCC 545), Govindaraju v. Mariamman ((2005) 2 SCC 500) and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar ((1999) 3 SCC 722).
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 79 - Full Document

Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999

14. The learned counsel forgets the fact that even when findings are concurrently entered into by SA 40 & 75 of 1994 -23- the courts below, it does not preclude the High Court from interfering with the said concurrent judgments when the judgments so entered into were not based on any evidence and were perverse and the conclusions arrived at by the courts below were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable to the facts of the case or contrary to law as pronounced by the Apex Court or was erroneous being based upon inadmissible evidence or on no evidence. It is enough that to be a substantial question of law, it must be debatable, not previously settled by the law of land or a binding precedent and should be such that answer to it would have a material bearing as to the rights of the parties before court. Similarly, a substantial question of law would arise where the legal position is clear, but, the courts below have decided the matter ignoring or acting contrary to such principle and has arrived at findings on wrong application or on a SA 40 & 75 of 1994 -24- misunderstanding of the position of law, as could be understood from the decisions of the Apex Court cited by the learned counsel himself, viz., the decisions reported in M.Nadar Kesavan Nadar v. Narayanan Nadar Kunjan Nadar ((2000) 10 SCC 244), Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal ((2006) 5 SCC 545), Govindaraju v. Mariamman ((2005) 2 SCC 500) and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar ((1999) 3 SCC 722).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 739 - Full Document

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

"In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non- use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (see S.M.Karim v. Bibi Sakina, Parsinni v. Sukhi and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka). Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. 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 his adverse possession."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 382 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Parsinni (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. vs Sukhi And Ors. on 15 September, 1993

"In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non- use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (see S.M.Karim v. Bibi Sakina, Parsinni v. Sukhi and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka). Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. 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 his adverse possession."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 152 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

D.N. Venkatarayappa & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 9 July, 1997

25. Considering the case set up by the respondents in the light of the tests laid down by the Apex Court, the instant case is not one which enables adverse possession claimed by the respondents being upheld and for that reason, the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding perfection of title by adverse possession and limitation by the respondents over the scheduled property and building entered into for reason of wrong application of the law on the subject and with insufficient pleadings and fatal admissions against the claim on the part of the respondents deserve to be set aside. Substantial questions of law 3 and 4 are, thus, answered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 202 - Full Document

Deva (Dead) Thr. L.Rs vs Sajjan Kumar (Dead) By L.Rs on 26 August, 2003

14. The Apex Court in Deva v. Sajjan Kumar ((2003) 7 SCC 481) has held, considering Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that concurrent findings of fact is liable to be interfered with in Second Appeal when a very important piece of evidence in the nature of an admission by the defendant has been over looked by the courts below. In the instant case, the courts below have upheld the case of adverse possession set up by the respondents/Defendants overlooking the admission of the first respondent/first defendant as DW1 in cross examination that there is no Jenmi for the scheduled property in their occupation; that she is not aware of what right Ayyi Bhavani had over the SA 40 & 75 of 1994 -27- scheduled property and building except that Ayyi Bhavani was in residential occupation and when she vacated, they occupied the building and that she is not aware as to whom the scheduled property and building belonged at the time of their occupation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 53 - Full Document
1   2 Next