Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)
Sinnaraj Pillai And Ors. vs Ramayee Ammal And Anr. on 24 August, 1967 cites

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

While the ultimate finding, whether there is, ouster or not is a matter for inference from facts and there can be no comprehensive formula to test whether the possession of a co-tenant in a particular case is adverse to the other co-tenant, when the plea is of adverse possession against a tenant-in-common, the approach to the determination of the question is different. The Court cannot be satisfied with mere exclusive possession of one tenant-in-common. A tenant-in-common pleading ouster must establish that there was denial of the other co-owner's right in the properties, that the denial was sufficiently notorious and open, that the tenant-in-common out of possession should have got knowledge of it, and that the tenant-in-common in possession continued to enjoy the properties in repudiation of the rights of the other co-tenant in the properties for the statutory period. (See Jogendra Nath Roy v. Baldeo Das, (1908) ILR 35 Cal 961; Krishnayya v. Udayalakshmamma, 1953-2 Mad LJ 241; Jagannath Marwari v. Smt. Chandni Bivi, 26 Cal WN 65=(AIR 1921 Cal 647); Lakshmi Reddi v. Lakshmi Reddi, ; Peeran Sahib v. Jamaluddin Sahib, AIR 1958 Andh Pra 48; Palania Pillai v. Ibrahim Rowther, ILR (1943) Mad 15= (AIR 1942 Mad 622) (FB); Chenabasavana Gowd v. Mahabaleswarappa, ; Ameer Bibi v. Chinnammal, .
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 252 - B Jagannadhadas - Full Document

Hazarath Sayed Shamian Sakkab Kadiri ... vs T.B. Ibrahim Sahib (Died) And Ors. on 14 August, 1959

While the ultimate finding, whether there is, ouster or not is a matter for inference from facts and there can be no comprehensive formula to test whether the possession of a co-tenant in a particular case is adverse to the other co-tenant, when the plea is of adverse possession against a tenant-in-common, the approach to the determination of the question is different. The Court cannot be satisfied with mere exclusive possession of one tenant-in-common. A tenant-in-common pleading ouster must establish that there was denial of the other co-owner's right in the properties, that the denial was sufficiently notorious and open, that the tenant-in-common out of possession should have got knowledge of it, and that the tenant-in-common in possession continued to enjoy the properties in repudiation of the rights of the other co-tenant in the properties for the statutory period. (See Jogendra Nath Roy v. Baldeo Das, (1908) ILR 35 Cal 961; Krishnayya v. Udayalakshmamma, 1953-2 Mad LJ 241; Jagannath Marwari v. Smt. Chandni Bivi, 26 Cal WN 65=(AIR 1921 Cal 647); Lakshmi Reddi v. Lakshmi Reddi, ; Peeran Sahib v. Jamaluddin Sahib, AIR 1958 Andh Pra 48; Palania Pillai v. Ibrahim Rowther, ILR (1943) Mad 15= (AIR 1942 Mad 622) (FB); Chenabasavana Gowd v. Mahabaleswarappa, ; Ameer Bibi v. Chinnammal, .
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

T.P.R. Palania Pillai (Died) And Ors. vs Amjath Ibrahim Rowther And Anr. on 6 July, 1942

While the ultimate finding, whether there is, ouster or not is a matter for inference from facts and there can be no comprehensive formula to test whether the possession of a co-tenant in a particular case is adverse to the other co-tenant, when the plea is of adverse possession against a tenant-in-common, the approach to the determination of the question is different. The Court cannot be satisfied with mere exclusive possession of one tenant-in-common. A tenant-in-common pleading ouster must establish that there was denial of the other co-owner's right in the properties, that the denial was sufficiently notorious and open, that the tenant-in-common out of possession should have got knowledge of it, and that the tenant-in-common in possession continued to enjoy the properties in repudiation of the rights of the other co-tenant in the properties for the statutory period. (See Jogendra Nath Roy v. Baldeo Das, (1908) ILR 35 Cal 961; Krishnayya v. Udayalakshmamma, 1953-2 Mad LJ 241; Jagannath Marwari v. Smt. Chandni Bivi, 26 Cal WN 65=(AIR 1921 Cal 647); Lakshmi Reddi v. Lakshmi Reddi, ; Peeran Sahib v. Jamaluddin Sahib, AIR 1958 Andh Pra 48; Palania Pillai v. Ibrahim Rowther, ILR (1943) Mad 15= (AIR 1942 Mad 622) (FB); Chenabasavana Gowd v. Mahabaleswarappa, ; Ameer Bibi v. Chinnammal, .
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 35 - Full Document
1   2 Next