Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.96 seconds)
Mrs. Susheela Jain @ Susheela Bai vs Sri. Chellappa on 6 January, 2022 cites

Mst. Nirashi Bai vs Ramlal S/O Kajal Ganda And Ors. on 7 October, 2005

51. In the instant case, defendants 3 to 5 admitting the plaintiff's title over the suit property contend that defendants 4 and 5 are in possession of the suit property as intending purchasers. They failed to prove the said 57 OS.26041/2007 contention. In the instant case, it is not the contention of defendants 3 to 5 that they are in possession of the suit property unauthorisedly to the knowledge of plaintiff with hostile intention to acquire title by adverse possession. When such is the case, in view of plaintiff filed the instant suit for recovery of possession on the basis of title, Article 65 of the Limitation Act would apply and in view of defendants 3 to 5 have not put-forth the defence of adverse possession, the instant suit cannot be said to be barred by limitation on the ground that plaintiff failed to prove her possession 12 years prior to impleading defendants 4 and 5 as parties to the suit. In support of my view in addition to placing reliance on the findings given in para No.12 and 13 in the case of Mst. Nirashi Bai Vs Ramlal & Ors cited supra I place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indira Vs Armugam and another reported in ILR 1998 Kar. 1422. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sri Ramaiah vs Sri B N Govinda Reddy on 10 June, 2008

53. I went through the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramaiah Vs N. Narayana Reddy. In the said judgment, plaintiff and defendant both contend that as owners they are in possession of the suit property. Both are having sale deeds in their favour. Defendant in addition to his contention that as owner he is in possession of the suit property also put-forth the defence that in the year 1971 he ousted the plaintiff from the suit property. In view of both the parties put forth their claim of title and 59 OS.26041/2007 defendant put forth the defence of ouster, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that in view of plaintiff failed to prove the possession over the suit property 12 years prior to the date of institution of suit, the suit for possession is barred by limitation. In the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has opined that whether Article 64 or 65 of Limitation Act would apply to the case is to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and pleas putforth by the parties. In the instant case, defendants 3 to 5 admitting the plaintiff's title over the suit property contend that she voluntarily handed over the possession to them under agreement of sale dated: 15.2.2005 which they failed to prove. Except the said contention, defendants 3 to 5 have not put-forth any other contention. Therefore, having regard to the contentions taken in the instant suit, Article 65 of Limitation Act would apply and in view of defendants not put-forth the plea of adverse possession, the instant suit cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - C R Kumaraswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next