Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.29 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 64 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Government Of India & Ors on 16 April, 2004
25. It is not deemed necessary to clarify so qua Article 65 of the
Limitation Act inasmuch as the respondent/defendant does not claim
adversely to the appellant/plaintiff but sets up a lawful title and it is
settled law that the plea of adverse possession is antithetical to a claim
for lawful title. Reference if any, in this regard, may be made to (i)
Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639; (ii) Karnataka
Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779; (iii) T.
Anjanappa Vs. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570; (iv) P.T.
Munichikkanna Reddy Vs. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59; (v) L.N.
Aswathama Vs. P. Prakash (2009) 13 SCC 229; and, (vi) Pushpa Rani
RSA 140/2017 Page 9 of 10
Vs. Jugnu Bansal 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10881
T. Anjanappa And Ors vs Somalingappa And Anr on 22 August, 2006
25. It is not deemed necessary to clarify so qua Article 65 of the
Limitation Act inasmuch as the respondent/defendant does not claim
adversely to the appellant/plaintiff but sets up a lawful title and it is
settled law that the plea of adverse possession is antithetical to a claim
for lawful title. Reference if any, in this regard, may be made to (i)
Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639; (ii) Karnataka
Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779; (iii) T.
Anjanappa Vs. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570; (iv) P.T.
Munichikkanna Reddy Vs. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59; (v) L.N.
Aswathama Vs. P. Prakash (2009) 13 SCC 229; and, (vi) Pushpa Rani
RSA 140/2017 Page 9 of 10
Vs. Jugnu Bansal 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10881
P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma And Ors on 24 April, 2007
25. It is not deemed necessary to clarify so qua Article 65 of the
Limitation Act inasmuch as the respondent/defendant does not claim
adversely to the appellant/plaintiff but sets up a lawful title and it is
settled law that the plea of adverse possession is antithetical to a claim
for lawful title. Reference if any, in this regard, may be made to (i)
Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639; (ii) Karnataka
Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779; (iii) T.
Anjanappa Vs. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570; (iv) P.T.
Munichikkanna Reddy Vs. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59; (v) L.N.
Aswathama Vs. P. Prakash (2009) 13 SCC 229; and, (vi) Pushpa Rani
RSA 140/2017 Page 9 of 10
Vs. Jugnu Bansal 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10881
L.N. Aswathama And Anr vs P. Prakash on 21 April, 2009
25. It is not deemed necessary to clarify so qua Article 65 of the
Limitation Act inasmuch as the respondent/defendant does not claim
adversely to the appellant/plaintiff but sets up a lawful title and it is
settled law that the plea of adverse possession is antithetical to a claim
for lawful title. Reference if any, in this regard, may be made to (i)
Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639; (ii) Karnataka
Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779; (iii) T.
Anjanappa Vs. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570; (iv) P.T.
Munichikkanna Reddy Vs. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59; (v) L.N.
Aswathama Vs. P. Prakash (2009) 13 SCC 229; and, (vi) Pushpa Rani
RSA 140/2017 Page 9 of 10
Vs. Jugnu Bansal 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10881
Sajjadanashin Sayed Md.B.E.Edr.(D)By ... vs Musa Dadabhai Ummer & Others on 23 February, 2000
18. Supreme Court, in Sajjadanashin Sayed MD. B.E. EDR. (D) Vs.
Musa Dadabhai Ummer (2000) 3 SCC 350, has analysed at length on
what are matters "directly and substantially in issue" as distinct from
matters which are "collaterally and incidentally in issue" and held that
decision on matters "collaterally or incidentally in issue" in previous
proceedings would not ordinarily operate as res judicata in subsequent
proceeding where that matter is directly and substantially in issue.