Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.27 seconds)Article 64 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 9 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Nair Service Society Ltd vs Rev. Father K. C. Alexander & Ors on 12 February, 1968
The statement of lew by Lord Mac-naghten makes no. distinction between the possession wrongfully obtained or otherwise. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Nair Service Society v. K. C. Alexandar (AIR 1968 SC 1165) followed the dictum of Lord Macnaghten in Perry v. Clissold and reiterated that even after expiry of the period mentioned in Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a suit based on possessory title was maintainable and in such a suit the plaintiff .need not prove his title, stating :--
Section 8 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Dharani Kanta Lahiri Chowdhuri vs Gabar Ali Khan on 5 December, 1912
In Dharani Kanta Lahiri v. Gabar All Khan, (1913) 25 Mad LJ 98 (PC) the plaintiffs claimed the disputed lands as their own by virtue of their title as a part of their zamindari and alleged that the defendants were in effect (respassers. The defendants contended that the disputed plot was included in a grant to them of the year 1740 renewed in 1845 and that they were all along in possession as permanent tenants under the grant. The defendants also relied on limitation. Their Lordships stated:
Konappa Mudaliar vs Kusalaru Alias Munuswami Pillai And ... on 6 February, 1969
12. With respect, we are unable to accept the view expressed by the learned Judges. The decision of Alagiriswami J., in K. Mudaliar v. K. Munuswami Pillai, AIR 1970 Mad 328 has since been reversed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Southern India Education Trust, Madras v. M S Jaga-dambal, AIR 1972 Mad 162. In Southern [ndia Education Trust.