Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)
Vasantiben P. Nayak & Ors vs Somnath M. Nayak & Ors on 9 March, 2004 cites

Ram Kisto Mandal And Anr vs Dhankisto Mandal on 15 July, 1968

In the case of Ram Kisto Mandal & Anr. v. Dhankisto Mandal (supra), it has been held by this Court that the right of the reversioner to recover possession of the property within twelve years from the death of the widow is not only based on provisions of the limitation act but on the principles of Hindu Law and the general principles that the right of a reversioner is in the nature of spes successionis (estate in expectancy) and such reversioner does not trace his title through the widow. Under the common law, there are two types of estates namely, estates in possession and estates in expectancy. Estates in remainder/reversion are estates in expectancy as opposed to estates in possession. Consequently, adverse possession against a life-tenant will not bar the reversioner/remainder from succeeding to the estate on the demise of the life-tenant. This is the reason for enacting explanation (a) to Article 65 of the said Act, which has no application to the facts of this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 19 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Hanamgowda Shidgowda Patil vs Irgowda Shivgowda Patil on 25 June, 1924

In the case of Hanamgowda v. Irgowda reported in [AIR 1925 Bom. 9], it has been held that in cases of adverse possession, the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but it commences from the date when the defendants' possession became adverse. Therefore, in the present case, the starting point of limitation for adverse possession cannot be taken as 29th November, 1965 and one has to take the date when the respondents' possession became adverse. For all the above reasons, there is no merit in the above arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1