cites: 24080355

1 - 3 of 3 (0.83 seconds)

Chintamani Rout vs Collector Kalahandi And Another on 16 March, 2017 cites

The Secretary Of State For India vs Debendra Lal Khan on 30 November, 1933

In the celebrated judgment, the Privy Council in the Secretary of State v. Debendra Lal Khan, AIR 1934 Privy Council 23 held that the classical requirement of adverse possession is that the possession should be nec vi nec clam nec precario.

Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 136 - Full Document

Radhamoni Debi vs The Collector Of Khulna And Ors. on 24 March, 1900

Their Lordships quoted with approval the decision in the case of Radhamoni Devi v. The Collector of Khulna and others, Indian Appeals 1900 Vol. XXVII at page 140 that "the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity, and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor".

Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 107 - Full Document

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

In Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Govt. of India and others, (2004) 10 SCC 779, the apex Court observed as under :-

Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 638 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results

The Secretary Of State For India vs Debendra Lal Khan on 30 November, 1933

Radhamoni Debi vs The Collector Of Khulna And Ors. on 24 March, 1900

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