Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)
Sh. Shiv Nath Prasad vs Sh. Shyam Nath Prasad on 22 September, 2011 cites

V.N.Deosthali vs State Through Cbi on 15 December, 2009

25. As regards issue no.5 entitlement of the plaintiff towards the mesne profits, in para 8 of the evidence by way of affidavit plaintiff has deposed that plaintiff would be entitled to mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month as license of the defendant was terminated. There is no cross examination of PW1 by the defendant on this aspect. Applying the law as observed by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V.N. Deosthali Vs. State through CBI (supra) deposition of plaintiff regarding entitlement to damages at the rate of Rs.1500/- would deemed to be admitted by the defendant.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 40 - V K Jain - Full Document

Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr on 15 December, 2003

"13. The law operating in this connection having been noticed by this Court in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, we need not enter into a deeper probe. Therein it was held: (SCC p. 775, paras 8-9) "8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned, the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking the law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force. In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted RCA No.113/11 Page No. 12 of 21 trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in nature, or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1261 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1