Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.35 seconds)
Jai Kishan And Others vs Sardari Lal And Others on 28 May, 2015 cites

P.Periasami (Dead) By Lrs vs P. Periathambi And Others on 11 October, 1995

12. The plea of ownership simpliciter is based on the concept of title, which one may acquire through various sources like succession, gift, will, sale, exchange, grant etc. etc. and the person in possession is essentially to be treated as being in lawful possession. While on the other hand when the plea of adverse possession is projected inherent is the plea that someone else is the ownership of the property. (See: P. Periasami (dead) by L.Rs. vs. P. Periathambi and others (1995) 6 SCC 523. Having said so, it can safely be concluded that the pleas based on title and simultaneously on adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 107 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

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

S M Karim v. Bibi Sakinal AIR 1964 SC 1254, Parsinni v. Sukhi ( 1993 ) 4 SCC 375 and D N Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567.) 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 r 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,
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 382 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) By Lrs vs Sri Jagadish Kalita & Ors on 7 October, 2003

30. Animus possidendi is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the instant case, the appellant categorically states that his possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:16:34 :::HCHP 12 corollary is that he did not have the requisite animus. (See Mohd. Mohd. Ali v. Jagadish Kalita, SCC para 21.)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 229 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next