Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
Harpal Kurmi And Ors. vs Mohan Kurmi And Ors. on 1 April, 1924 cites

Thakur Sri Sri Radha Krishna Chanderji vs Ram Bahadur on 30 August, 1917

745 : 39 A. 460 : 15 A.L.J. 361. that even delivery of formal possession in a proper case is sufficient to give a new starting point for limitation and this has been held also by the Privy Council in Radha Krishna Chanderji v. Ram Bahadur 43 Ind. Cas. 268 : 16 A.L.J. 33 : 23 M.L.T. 26 : 4 P.L.W. 9 : 34 M.L.J. 97 : 7 L.W. 149 : 22 C.W.N. 330 : 27 C.L.J. 191 : (1918) M.W.N. 163 : 20 Bom. L.R. 502 (P.C.).
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Thakur Jang Bahadur Singh And Anr. vs Thakur Hanwant Singh on 18 March, 1921

The appellants rely on the case of Jang Bahadur Singh v. Hanwant Singh 63 Ind. Cas. 212 : 43 A. 520 : 19 A.L.J. 469. That case does not really assist them. It was a case in which the mode of delivery of possession appropriate to the circumstances was not resorted to and on this ground it was held that adverse possession was not interrupted. The person to whom possession was to be delivered was the auction-purchaser. Where the judgment-debtor was in possession of the property the proper procedure was for the Court to order actual delivery of possession to the auction-purchaser. Where, however, the property from its nature was not capable of being actually delivered the mode of giving possession was by proclaiming the sale certificate and by beating the drum. The case with which the Full Bench had to deal was one in which the former method should have been but the latter method actually was adopted. The present case is entirely dissimilar. Here the dakhalnama purported to give actual possession, which was the appropriate mode of relief though in the sequel it proved that the procedure adopted was not really effective. This must often be the case, An amin goes down to the spot and hands over possession to the decree-holder, The judgment-debtor keeping away. As soon as the amin and the decree-holder have gone the judgment-debtor quietly resumes possession. It would be destructive of all respect for law and authority of the Court if it were held that in such cases the judgment-debtor could treat the delivery of possession as a nullity and claim to be in adverse possession from the date of his original entry on the land. The suit has been rightly decided by the Courts below and I dismiss the appeal with costs.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1