Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.56 seconds)
C.Ramaiah vs A.Kothai Atchi on 18 November, 2019 cites

Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs Satyawati Sod And Ors. on 20 December, 1971

The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon a number of authorities in 18/36 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.1008 of 2008 Rachbha v. Mt Mendha [AIR 1947 All 177] ; Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Smt Satyawati Sood [AIR 1972 Del 171] and some other authorities, which, in our opinion have no bearing on the issues to be decided in this case and it is therefore not necessary for us to refer to the same.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Khunni Lal, Kanhaiya Lal And Sarnam ... vs Kunwar Gobind Krishna Narain on 28 March, 1911

Ameer Ali, J. delivering the judgment of the Privy Council quoted with approval the following passage from the judgment in Lalla Oudh Beharee Lall v. Mewa Koonwer (1868) 3 Agra HCR 82] : (Khunni Lal case) “… ‘The true character of the transaction appears to us to have been a settlement between the several members of the family of their disputes, each one relinquishing all claim in respect of all property in dispute other than that falling to his share, and recognising the right of the others as they had previously asserted it to the portion allotted to them respectively.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 130 - Full Document

Subraya M.N vs Vittala M.N.& Ors on 5 July, 2016

http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.1008 of 2008 “9.5. As held by this Court in Subraya M.N. [Subraya M.N. v. Vittala M.N., (2016) 8 SCC 705 : (2016) 4 SCC (Civ) 163] even without registration a written document of family settlement/ family arrangement can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, even the plaintiff has also categorically admitted that the oral partition had taken place on 23-4-1971 and he also admitted that 3 to 4 panchayat people were also present. However, according to him, the same was not reduced in writing. Therefore, even accepting the case of the plaintiff that there was an oral partition on 23-4- 1971, the document, Ext. D-4 dated 23-4-1971, to which he is also the signatory and all other family members are signatory, can be said to be a list of properties partitioned. Everybody got right/share as per the oral partition/partition. Therefore, the same even can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave/manifest error in not looking into and/or not considering the document Ext. D-4 dated 23-4-1971.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 66 - R Banumathi - Full Document

S. M. Karim vs Mst. Bibi Sakina on 14 February, 1964

"11. In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of true owner. It is a well- settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See : S M Karim v. Bibi Sakinal AIR 1964 SC 1254, Parsinni v. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 and D N Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567). Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 382 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Parsinni (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. vs Sukhi And Ors. on 15 September, 1993

"11. In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of true owner. It is a well- settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See : S M Karim v. Bibi Sakinal AIR 1964 SC 1254, Parsinni v. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 and D N Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567). Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 152 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next