Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.03 seconds)P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma And Ors on 24 April, 2007
The Court observed:(Revamma case 79-80,
paras 54-56)
"54. ... `The question nevertheless remains
whether, even having regard to the lack of care
and inadvertence on the part of the applicants
and their advisers, the deprivation of their title
to the registered land and the transfer of
beneficial ownership to those in unauthorized
possession struck a fair balance with any
legitimate public interest served.
The Limitation Act, 1963
S. M. Karim vs Mst. Bibi Sakina on 14 February, 1964
12. The Trial Court relied on the judgment of this Court in
S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina AIR 1964 SC 1254
wherein this Court has laid down that the 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. The Court also held that long
possession is not necessarily adverse possession.
Bhim Singh And Ors. vs Zile Singh And Ors. on 3 March, 2006
13. The Trial Court also relied on a decision of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Bhim Singh &
Ors. v. Zile Singh & Ors., AIR 2006 P and H 195,
wherein it was stated that no declaration can be sought by a
plaintiff with regard to the ownership on the basis of
adverse possession.
Article 41 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Ors on 23 September, 2008
In Hemaji Waghaji Jat case, this Court ultimately
observed as under:
1