Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Ramani (Deceased) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2015 cites

Lallu Yeshwant Singh vs Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors on 29 November, 1967

The Supreme Court held so, after referring to its earlier judgment reported in AIR 1968 SC 620 (Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh), wherein it is observed that the Government cannot take possession of the land except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and in that case, other case referred to was the decision reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 29 (East India Hotels Ltd v. Syndicate Bank), wherein, the Apex Court dealt with 'what is meant by due course of law?' and observed that due course of law in each particular case means such an exercise of the powers by duly constituted tribunal or court in accordance with the procedure established by law under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights. It is also stated therein that due course of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty or property in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise and to have the right determination of the controversy by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of fact or liability be conclusively proved or presumed against him and this is the meaning of due course of law in a comprehensive sense.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 202 - S M Sikri - Full Document

East India Hotels Ltd. vs Syndicate Bank on 12 September, 1991

The Supreme Court held so, after referring to its earlier judgment reported in AIR 1968 SC 620 (Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh), wherein it is observed that the Government cannot take possession of the land except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and in that case, other case referred to was the decision reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 29 (East India Hotels Ltd v. Syndicate Bank), wherein, the Apex Court dealt with 'what is meant by due course of law?' and observed that due course of law in each particular case means such an exercise of the powers by duly constituted tribunal or court in accordance with the procedure established by law under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights. It is also stated therein that due course of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty or property in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise and to have the right determination of the controversy by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of fact or liability be conclusively proved or presumed against him and this is the meaning of due course of law in a comprehensive sense.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 63 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document

M/S. Anamallai Club vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 23 October, 1996

9.However, the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs by relying on the judgments cited below, contended that even the unlawful possession, not supported by any valid title cannot be interfered with, without having recourse to court of law. It is further contended before this court that the possession of the deceased plaintiff for more than the statutory period in the nature of 'settled possession' cannot be interfered with except under due process of law. The contention so raised on the plaintiffs' side is well fortified by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this court in the following judgments: (i)AIR 1968 SC 620 (Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh and others) (ii)1992 Supp (2) SCC 29 (East India Hotels Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank) (iii)(1997) 3 SCC 169 (Anamallai Club v. Government of Tamil Nadu) (iv)AIR 1989 SC 997 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Maharani Rajlaxmi Kumari Devi and others) and (v)2013 (4) CTC 586 (The Chairman & Managing Trustee, Krishnaswamy Educational Trust, Chennai v. C.V.Rajeswari Ammal (deceased) and others. In all the cases cited above, the long and continuous possession of the plaintiff even after expiry of the licence or its termination, for over the statutory period was treated as in the nature of 'settled possession' entitling him to remain in possession and make use of the premises for the purpose for which it was demised until rejected in due course of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 48 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

The Chairman & Managing Trustee vs Tmt.C.V.Rajeswari Ammal (Deceased) on 13 June, 2013

9.However, the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs by relying on the judgments cited below, contended that even the unlawful possession, not supported by any valid title cannot be interfered with, without having recourse to court of law. It is further contended before this court that the possession of the deceased plaintiff for more than the statutory period in the nature of 'settled possession' cannot be interfered with except under due process of law. The contention so raised on the plaintiffs' side is well fortified by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this court in the following judgments: (i)AIR 1968 SC 620 (Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh and others) (ii)1992 Supp (2) SCC 29 (East India Hotels Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank) (iii)(1997) 3 SCC 169 (Anamallai Club v. Government of Tamil Nadu) (iv)AIR 1989 SC 997 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Maharani Rajlaxmi Kumari Devi and others) and (v)2013 (4) CTC 586 (The Chairman & Managing Trustee, Krishnaswamy Educational Trust, Chennai v. C.V.Rajeswari Ammal (deceased) and others. In all the cases cited above, the long and continuous possession of the plaintiff even after expiry of the licence or its termination, for over the statutory period was treated as in the nature of 'settled possession' entitling him to remain in possession and make use of the premises for the purpose for which it was demised until rejected in due course of law.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 7 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004

The Apex Court in its decision reported in 2004 (10) SCC 779 (Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India), laid down the following principles as regards the plea of adverse possession that the plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law, but a blended one of fact and law. A person whose claim adverse possession should show (i)on what date he came into possession (ii)what was the nature of his possession (iii)whether his possession was known to the Opposite Party (iv)how long his possession continued and (v)his possession was open and undisturbed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 638 - Full Document
1