Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
Balkrishna S/O Bhagwanji Lohi ... ... vs Prakash S/O Sheshrao Lohi on 10 January, 2014 cites

State Of West Bengal vs The Dalhousie Institute Society on 5 August, 1970

27. The requirements for perfecting title by adverse possession have been stated in the case of State of West Bengal v. The Dalhousie Institute Society, supra, referred to me by the learned counsel for defendants. They would show that by evidence, it must be established that the possession is open continuous, uninterrupted and adverse to the real owner for such a period as is prescribed under Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act. The prescription for such a nature of possession is of 12 years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 65 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Dada Vaku Nikam vs Bahiru Hingu Nikam on 20 July, 1927

24. The principle laid down in the said cases of Bhagwan Kaur and Dada (supra) has been stated by me earlier and even on its basis, I do not think that the claim of the defendants that the suit house was received by them in exchange for Mainabai's house given to Sheshrao can be said to have been established in this case. The reason is that to seek any application of this principle of law, the defendants would be required to prove that they were in possession of the suit house at the time when the oral exchange took place. The evidence brought on record by them shows the position to be otherwise. The evidence of defendant no. 1 Balkrishna (Ex.52) is relevant in this regard. He has stated in paragraph 2 that in the year 1954 there was exchange of properties between himself ::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:08:24 ::: 19 and Sheshrao on the basis of an oral agreement. He also states that in addition to giving of house of Mainabai to Sheshrao, he had paid Rs.850/- to Sheshrao. This would show that basically this transaction was not purely that of an exchange, as defined under Section 118 of T.P. Act but was also accompanied by a consideration in terms of money and, therefore, it was a transfer of ownership partly in exchange for a price and partly in exchange for ownership of one thing for the ownership of another. Such transaction would also fall within the definition of "sale"
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next