Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.24 seconds)

Munshi Ram And Others vs Delhi Administration on 27 November, 1967

In Puran Singh case 'V13 83 (supra), the Court clarified that it is difficuit to lay down any hard-and-fast rule as to when the possession of trespasser can mature into settled*':.f""-.."' possession. The 'settied possession'_--rh.ust--'.i'y:'~~if 'V' be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed,_a.n,df{ViVi'ii): . to the knowledge of the owner o_r'--«._w-;ith:oLa_t._'"7 any attempt at concealmenti the ~ trespasser. Theif-.__phr2a-se V Possession' does not'V'Vi'i'carry aifi-vflviislieciial charm or magic'"i~n_ itylvnor' ritua'lis"tic formula which"4"Ca'n in a straitiacket. :A*r'.-h. ::':*'CV(:'5lP_a"tli,.<'1?Iv1,: it 'of the property ' 'Va. :*pers'o:n 'i-a'n----agent or a serva'nVt'i;_'actir'iTg: iraistaince of the owner to actual physical possession}~.?fTh'e__:'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 489 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Hira Lal Rattan Lal Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Anr. Etc. Etc on 3 October, 1972

It is thejfsettledyi :.p_o,'s'session "or effective possession 'without title whichwoul:d'e'nti,l:lehim to«wp§*otect his p'»oss_e--ss'io'-n~«».__»ea:en_T"-as-- I against the true ownuerré Th__e'"of settled possession and the right of "the possessor to protect ~ihisli' posse's.si__o__n, against the owner has co'ra,e.,i'to be settled by a catena of . Illustratively, we may refer to Ram Vs. Delhi Administration V ((1963:) 2 scn 455), Puran Singh Vs. .. state of Punjab ((1975) 4 sec 513) and if raam Rattan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ((19???) 1 SCC 188). The authorities need not be multiplied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 55 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1