Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)
Karam Singh And Ors. vs Nathu Singh on 8 August, 1994 cites

P. Lakshmi Reddy vs L. Lakshmi Reddy on 5 December, 1956

(9) As regards the plea of ouster, we need to remember that as between co sharers, possession of one co-sharer is in law the possession of all co-sharers. Therefore, to constitute adverse possession, ouster of the non-possessing co sharer has to be made out. There must be evidence of open assertion of a hostile title coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other (See P. Lakshmi Reddy Vs. L. Lakshmi Reddy, Mohammad Bagar Vs. Naimun-Nisa Bibi, , & Shambhu Prasad Vs. Mst. Phool Kumari, ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 252 - B Jagannadhadas - Full Document

Mohammad Baqar And Ors. vs Naim-Un-Nisa Bibi And Ors. on 9 November, 1955

(9) As regards the plea of ouster, we need to remember that as between co sharers, possession of one co-sharer is in law the possession of all co-sharers. Therefore, to constitute adverse possession, ouster of the non-possessing co sharer has to be made out. There must be evidence of open assertion of a hostile title coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other (See P. Lakshmi Reddy Vs. L. Lakshmi Reddy, Mohammad Bagar Vs. Naimun-Nisa Bibi, , & Shambhu Prasad Vs. Mst. Phool Kumari, ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 53 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Shambhu Prasad Singh vs Mst. Phool Kumari & Ors on 24 March, 1971

(9) As regards the plea of ouster, we need to remember that as between co sharers, possession of one co-sharer is in law the possession of all co-sharers. Therefore, to constitute adverse possession, ouster of the non-possessing co sharer has to be made out. There must be evidence of open assertion of a hostile title coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other (See P. Lakshmi Reddy Vs. L. Lakshmi Reddy, Mohammad Bagar Vs. Naimun-Nisa Bibi, , & Shambhu Prasad Vs. Mst. Phool Kumari, ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 53 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Hardit Singh vs Gurmukh Singh on 29 January, 1918

(11) As observed by the Privy Council in Hardit Singh Vs. Gurmukh Singh (AIR 1918 Pc 1) the phrase "exclusive possession" has an equivocal meaning. If by exclusive possession of joint estate is meant that one member of the joint family alone occupies it, that by itself affords no evidence of exclusion of other interested members of the family. Uninterrupted sole possession of such property, without more must be referred to the lawful title possessed by the joint holder to use the joint estate, and cannot be regarded as an assertion of a right to hold it as separate, so as to assert an adverse claim against other interested members.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

I. Gouri And Ors. vs C.H. Ibrahim And Anr. on 20 August, 1979

(14) During arguments Mr.V.P.Singh did not refer to any precedent while Dr. Sidhu who argued on behalf of the respondent placed reliance only on a judgment of Kerala High Court in I. Gouri Vs. C.H. lbrahim and more particularly to that portion of paragraph 5 of the judgment which reproduces the following from Woodroffe's Law of Injunction (1964) : "(1)The Courts will, in all cases be cautious of interference with the possession and enjoyment of joint property. (2) If one co-sharer uses the joint property to the greater profits of himself, but without damage to the co-sharers, there is no cause of action. (3) In as much as each co-sharer is entitled to a portion of every part of the joint property, the Court will not, as a general rule, enforce merely strict rights and will not interpose where the user is slightly in excess of the right. (4) Where there is an infringement of a character which is sufficiently substantial to entitle to some relief, the Courts will, in the determination of the question whether an injunction should be granted, have to consider whether the injury is adequately remediable by damages and partition. If that be the case, an injunction will be refused. (5) In the particular case of alleged injury through cultivation in the ordinary course by a co-sharer in actual occupation and sole use of the property, damages and not an injunction will ordinarily be granted even though the cultivation has the effect of excluding a co-sharer, unless such exclusion is in denial of that co-sharer's title, in which case an injunction will be granted, such a rule being necessitated by the climate, soil and other peculiar circumstances of this country in which the lands are ordinarily cultivated in common. (6) In all other cases, an injunction may be granted where act complained of involves the exclusion of the co-sharer, or some other material and substantial injury not remediable by partition or damages, such as the material and injurious alteration of the nature and condition of the property to which the parties are jointly entitled."
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Prabhoo vs Doodh Nath And Ors. on 2 December, 1977

(19) The responden't having prima facie established himself to be a co-owner and the pleas of ouster and adverse possession having not been established prima facie, the impugned order cannot be faulted more so when the respondent had approached the court without much loss of time. A co-owner has not in law any right to appropriate land to himself out of a joint land against the consent of his co-owner. As observed in Prabhoo Vs. Soodh Nath : "Highhanded action by one co-owner cannot be encouraged by courts of law." Of course, each case is to be decided upon its own peculiar facts and it will be left to the court to exercise its discretion upon proof of circumstances showing which side the balance of convenience lies.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Chhedi Lal And Anr. vs Chhotey Lal on 16 November, 1950

As laid down by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Chhedi Lal Vs. Chhotey Lal , the court in the exercise of its discretion has to be guided by considerations of justice, equity and good conscience and that no inflexible rule can be laid down as to the circumstances in which the relief for injunction should be granted or refused. However, I do feel that in the case in hand, the impugned order, having taken care of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles governing the law of injunctions, suffers from no such infirmity as may call for interference. The order thus stands subject, however, to modification regarding construction, if any, brought about by the order of this court dated May 31, 1991. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 33 - G Hasan - Full Document
1