Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.42 seconds)Section 31 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 35A in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
R.Balakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2003
"7. The thought has prevailed incessantly, till
date, the last and latest one in the chain of decisions
being Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani
[(2003) 7 SCC 350] .
Lallu Yeshwant Singh vs Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors on 29 November, 1967
In between, to quote a few out
of several, in Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish
Singh [AIR 1968 SC 620 : (1968) 2 SCR 203] this
Court has held that a landlord did commit trespass
when he forcibly entered his own land in the
possession of a tenant whose tenancy has expired.
Yar Muhammad And Anr. vs Lakshmi Das And Ors. on 28 October, 1957
The Court turned down the submission that under
the general law applicable to a lessor and a lessee
there was no rule or principle which made it
obligatory for the lessor to resort to court and obtain
an order for possession before he could eject the
lessee. The Court quoted with approval the law as
stated by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in
Yar Mohd. v. Lakshmi Das [AIR 1959 All 1 : 1958 All
LJ 628 (FB)] (AIR at p. 4):
Nair Service Society Ltd vs Rev. Father K. C. Alexander & Ors on 12 February, 1968
"Law respects possession even if there is no title to
support it. It will not permit any person to take the
law in his own hands and to dispossess a person in
actual possession without having recourse to a court.
No person can be allowed to become a judge in his
own cause." (AIR p. 5, para 13)
In the oft-quoted case of Nair Service Society Ltd. v.
K.C. Alexander [AIR 1968 SC 1165 : (1968) 3 SCR
163] this Court held that a person in possession of
land in assumed character of owner and exercising
peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a
perfectly good title against all the world but the
rightful owner. When the facts disclose no title in
either party, possession alone decides. The Court
quoted Loft's maxim -- "Possessio contra omnes
valet praeter eur cui ius sit possessionis (he that
hath possession hath right against all but him that
31
hath the very right)" and said: (AIR p. 1175, para
M. C. Chockalingam & Ors vs V. Manickavasagam & Ors on 31 October, 1973
In M.C. Chockalingam v. V. Manickavasagam [(1974)
1 SCC 48] this Court held that the law forbids
forcible dispossession, even with the best of title.
Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead), By His Lrs. vs Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao on 9 August, 1989
In
Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao [(1989)
4 SCC 131] it was held that where a person is in
settled possession of property, even on the
assumption that he had no right to remain on the
property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of
the property except by recourse to law.