Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.43 seconds)
Ezera Tamang vs Suk Bahadur Tamang And Anr on 21 December, 2021 cites

Mohan Lal (Deceased) Throughhis Lrs. ... vs Mirza Abdul Gaffar & Anr on 12 December, 1995

"20. Also noteworthy is the decision of this Court in Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar [Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar, (1996) 1 SCC 639] , wherein this Court held that claim of title to the property and adverse possession are in terms contradictory. This Court observed: (SCC pp. 640-41, para 4) "4. As regards the first plea, it is inconsistent with the second plea. Having come into possession under the agreement, he must disclaim his right thereunder and plead and prove assertion of his independent hostile adverse possession to the knowledge of the transferor or his successor in title or interest and that the latter had acquiesced to his illegal possession during the entire period of 12 years i.e. up to completing the period of his title by prescription nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. Since the appellant's claim is founded on Section 53-A, it goes without saying that he admits by implication that he came into possession of the land lawfully under the agreement and continued to remain in possession till date of the suit. Thereby the plea of adverse possession is not available to the appellant."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 215 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008

In Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal7 the Supreme Court held that in the absence of a plea by the plaintiffs based on an easementary right, the defendant did not have any opportunity to demonstrate that the plaintiff had no easementary right. In the absence of pleading and an opportunity to the defendant to deny such plaint, the High Court could not have converted the suit for title into a suit for enforcement of easementary right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 551 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Vasantiben P. Nayak & Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak & Ors on 9 March, 2004

In Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak & Ors. vs. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak & Ors.8, the Supreme Court held that to establish ouster in cases involving claim of adverse possession the defendant must prove three elements namely, hostile intention; long and uninterrupted possession; and exercise of the right of exclusive ownership openly and to the knowledge of the owner. In cases of adverse possession, the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff, but it commences from the date when the defendant‟s possession became adverse.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 114 - Full Document

Bhutnath Nag And On His Death His Heirs ... vs Satya Kinkar Nag And On His Death His ... on 4 August, 1919

In Uttam Chand (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Nathu Ram (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors.9 the Supreme Court held that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of the real owner‟s title to the property claimed. A person claiming title by adverse possession must prove who is the true owner and if such person is not sure who the true owner is, the question of them being in hostile possession as well as of denying the title of the true owner does not arise.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil & Ors. Etc. ... vs Balwant And Balasaheb Babusaheb ... on 6 January, 1995

21. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant [Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant, (1995) 2 SCC 543], wherein this Court elaborated the significance of a claim to title vis-à-vis the claim to adverse possession over the same property. The Court said: (SCC p. 554, para 15) "15. Where possession can be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse. The reason being that a person whose possession can be referred to a lawful title will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to another's title. One who holds possession on behalf of another, does not by mere denial of that other's title make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. Therefore, a person who enters into possession having a lawful title, cannot divest another of that title by pretending that he had no title at all.""
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 213 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next