Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.97 seconds)

L.N. Aswathama And Anr vs P. Prakash on 21 April, 2009

46. That being so, in the present case, the contention of Mr. Deepak Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, to the effect that the plea on the basis of documentary title to the suit property and that of adverse possession are not sustainable at the hands of a defendant qua the same property, is an argument that is to be rejected, no other judgment to the contrary having been shown to this court, and in any case the reasoning given in Aswathamas' case being that if a person has remained in possession for a long time, claiming documentary title to a property but eventually is unable to prove that title, he can also take an alternative plea of having been in adverse possession thereof, open and hostile to the true owner, by which he has perfected his title to the property in any case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 160 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Saroop Singh vs Banto & Ors on 7 October, 2005

Next, citing a judgment of the Supreme Court in Saroop Singh v. Banto and others 2006 (1) CCC 198, and two judgments of this court, the lower appellate court held that admittedly the defendant had started residing, alongwith Sibo, i.e. his maternal aunt, in the house of his maternal grandfather since he was an infant. Hence, it was obvious that he was residing in the property with the permission of his maternal grandfather.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 85 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1