Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Smt. Chandrakantaben, Wife Of ... vs Vadilal Sapalal Modi And Ors. on 30 March, 1989 cites

Gangabai Baswantrao Desai vs Fakirgowda Somappagowda Desai on 3 December, 1929

The entry was made in May 1933. This entry appears to have been placed within brackets and a second entry inserted mentioning Chandrakanta 'wife of Jayantilal Bapalal'. Mr. B.K. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the appellant : has strongly relied upon the revenue entry as proof of her title. Reference was made to the decision in Gangabai and Ors. v. Fakirgowda Somaypagowda Desai and Ors. ; and Desai Navinkant Kesarlal v. Prabhat Kabhai 9 Gujarat Law Reporter 694.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Desai Navinkant Kesarlal And Ors. vs Prabhat Kabhai And Ors. on 23 February, 1967

The entry was made in May 1933. This entry appears to have been placed within brackets and a second entry inserted mentioning Chandrakanta 'wife of Jayantilal Bapalal'. Mr. B.K. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the appellant : has strongly relied upon the revenue entry as proof of her title. Reference was made to the decision in Gangabai and Ors. v. Fakirgowda Somaypagowda Desai and Ors. ; and Desai Navinkant Kesarlal v. Prabhat Kabhai 9 Gujarat Law Reporter 694.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 6 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Hari Prosad Agarwalla And Anr. vs Abdul Haq And Ors. on 1 March, 1951

17. Mr. Dholakia, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents contended that since the chawl has remained in actual possession of the tenants, Bapalal or the family must be held to be in symbolic possession in 1946 and for that reason the defendant No. 6 also can not be treated to have come in actual possession of the property, which could have permitted her to prescribe a title in the chawl. The learned Counsel further argued that since the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff were actually collecting rent from the tenants they also must be held to be in joint possession and, therefore, the Defendant No. 6 can not succeed as she has not been able to prove their ouster. The other members of the joint family will also be entitled to rely on this aspect so as to successfully defend their right. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Patna High Court in Hari Prasad Agarwalla and Anr. v. Abdul Haq and Ors. ; in support of the argument that for adverse possession actual physical possession is necessary and mere constructive possession is not sufficient. We are afraid, it is not possible to accept the argument.
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Uppalapati Veera ... vs Josyula Hanumayamma And Another. J. C. ... on 29 September, 1961

The appellant has, however, established her case that the defendant No. 1 acted as her agent after 1946 and when he repudiated this agency in 1952 he was effectively removed from the management of the chawl. Since 1946 the tenants attorned to the defendant No. 6 and paid rent to her under printed receipts announcing her onwership, but of course through her agent the defendant No. 1. The actual physical possession of the tenants in the circumstances would enable the appellant to establish her prescriptive title. The decision in Uppalapati Veera Venkata Satyanarayanaraju and Anr. v. Josyula Hanummamma and Anr. (1963) 3 SCR 910, indicates that if a tenant makes an attornment in favour of a person who is not the true owner and follows by paying the rent to him, such a person must be held to have effective possession. The landlord must be deemed to be in possession through his tenant is also demonstrated by another illustration. It the tenant trespasses over the neighbour's land treating it to be covered by his tenancy and remains in possession for requisite period so as to prescribe a title thereto, his interest therein is limited to the interest of the tenant and his landlord acquires the title of the owner. The conduct of such a tenant has been aptly described as stealing for the landlord, (see I.L.R. 10 Calcutta 820 and (1949) 54 C.W.N. 879). The fact that the tenants have been in actual physical possession of the chawl is, in the circumstances, of no assistance to the respondents. What is material is that they paid the rent to the defendant No. 6.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 17 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document
1