Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (4.20 seconds)
Dharma Singh vs Sh. Sheo Shankar Parshad on 31 July, 2015 cites

D. Satyanarayana vs P. Jagadish on 15 September, 1987

43.Secondly, in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme CS No.: 111/14 Page 29 of 40 Court of India in a case titled as D. Satyanarayan Vs. P. Jagdish, AIR 1987 SC 2192 wherein it has been held in para 3 and 4 that:­ "3........ Section 116 of the Evidence Act provides that no tenant of immovable property shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property. Possession and permission being established, estoppal would bind the tenant during the continuance of the tenancy and until he surrenders his possession. The words' during continuance of the possession that was received under the tenancy in question, and the courts have repeatedly laid down that estoppal operates even after the termination of the tenancy so that a tenant who had been let into possession, however, defective it may be, so long as he had not openly surrendered possession, cannot dispute the title of the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. The rule of estoppel is thus restricted not only in extent but also in time i.e. restricted to the title of the landlord and during the continuance of the tenancy; and by necessary implication, it follows that a tenant is not estopped, when he is under threat of eviction by the title paramount, form contending that the landlord had no title before the tenancy commenced or that the title of the landlord has since come to an end."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 108 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 Next