Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.41 seconds)
Bhullan Singh (Thorugh L R) vs Ms Scindia Potteries And Seervices Pvt ... on 5 June, 2025 cites

Hari Kishan vs M/S Scindia Potteries & Services ... on 24 November, 2015

37. Now, coming to the facts of the present case. In his defence in the written statement, the defendant denied any title of the plaintiff to the suit property and pleaded ownership through adverse possession. However, although the defendant pleaded in the written statement that he had become owner by way of adverse possession, however, the defendant did not state as to who was the true owner against whom the defendant was claiming adverse possession. Since the defendant had already denied any title of the plaintiff to the suit property, hence, there was no question of any adverse possession against the plaintiff. The defendant did not even state anything about the possession being adverse to the L&DO. In these facts, the present case is similar to the case in Hari Kishan (supra) in which also the defendant therein was not sure as to who was the true owner of the property in question. Hence, even in the present case, when the defendant himself did not even state as to who was the true owner of the property against whom the possession was adverse, there is no question of denying the title of the true owner.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

S. M. Karim vs Mst. Bibi Sakina on 14 February, 1964

The ingredients of adverse possession have succinctly been stated by this Court in S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina [AIR 1964 SC 1254] in the following terms: "Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 382 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

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

A peaceful, open and continuous possession as engraved in the maxim nec vi, nec clam, nec precario has been noticed by this Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India [(2004) 10 SCC 779] in the following terms: "Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is CS No. 144/10 16 not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 638 - Full Document

T. Anjanappa And Ors vs Somalingappa And Anr on 22 August, 2006

15. Notice was taken on the judgment of the Supreme Court in T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, (2006) 7 SCC 570, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the concept of adverse possession contemplates hostile possession, i.e. possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the true owner. Therefore, a person who claims title by adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 303 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Nathu Ram Through Lrs. vs M/S Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt. ... on 19 September, 2017

29. Thus, the title of the plaintiff under the perpetual lease deed from the L&DO in its favour for the entire premises of the Scindia Potteries complex has been recognised by the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid decisions. Crucially, as held by the Hon'ble High Court in Nathu RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 17 of 45 Ram (supra), the decision in Hari Kishan (supra) was relevant under section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as proof of title to immoveable property.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next