Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.79 seconds)Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr on 15 December, 2003
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would rely on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (dead) by L.Rs., 2004 (1) SCC 769, wherein, it has been held that when a person continued to be in settled possession, he cannot be dispossessed by undue process of law, even by the true owner. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
Munshi Ram And Others vs Delhi Administration on 27 November, 1967
In Munshi Ram & Ors.'s case (supra), it was held that no one, including the true owner, has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case unless he is evicted in the due course of law, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner. But merely stray or even intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be settled possession, extending over a sufficiently long period of time and acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. The rightful owner may re-enter and re- instate himself provided he does not use more force than is necessary. Such entry will be viewed only as resistance to an intrusion upon his possession which has never been lost. A stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true owner even by using necessary force.
Kanakarathanammal vs V. S. Loganatha Mudaliar And Another on 18 December, 1963
13. Learned counsel for the appellants would also rely on the judgments in Kanakarathanammal v. Loganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1965 SC 271; Vidyadhar Krishnarao Mungi v. Usman Gani Saheb Konkani, AIR 1974 SC 663; P.Purushotham Reddy v. M/s.Pratap Steels Ltd., AIR 2003 Andhra Pradesh 141; Basappa v. Basamma, AIR 2004 Madras 390; and Rajendrakumar Bhandari v. Poosammal, AIR 1975 Madras 379, in support of her contention that the agreement of sale was not genuine and it was executed with the sole intention to dispossess the appellants. According to her, the agreement of sale was sham and only nominal and that collusive decree has been obtained with the aid of the collusive agreement. She would also submit that once the parties approach the court with unclean hands, they are not entitled to any equitable relief and, therefore, the execution, pursuant to the collusive decree, is not sustainable in law.
Vidhyadhar Krishnarao Mungi And Ors. vs Usman Gani Saheb Konkani And Ors. on 26 February, 1974
13. Learned counsel for the appellants would also rely on the judgments in Kanakarathanammal v. Loganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1965 SC 271; Vidyadhar Krishnarao Mungi v. Usman Gani Saheb Konkani, AIR 1974 SC 663; P.Purushotham Reddy v. M/s.Pratap Steels Ltd., AIR 2003 Andhra Pradesh 141; Basappa v. Basamma, AIR 2004 Madras 390; and Rajendrakumar Bhandari v. Poosammal, AIR 1975 Madras 379, in support of her contention that the agreement of sale was not genuine and it was executed with the sole intention to dispossess the appellants. According to her, the agreement of sale was sham and only nominal and that collusive decree has been obtained with the aid of the collusive agreement. She would also submit that once the parties approach the court with unclean hands, they are not entitled to any equitable relief and, therefore, the execution, pursuant to the collusive decree, is not sustainable in law.
Basappa vs Basamma on 21 January, 2004
13. Learned counsel for the appellants would also rely on the judgments in Kanakarathanammal v. Loganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1965 SC 271; Vidyadhar Krishnarao Mungi v. Usman Gani Saheb Konkani, AIR 1974 SC 663; P.Purushotham Reddy v. M/s.Pratap Steels Ltd., AIR 2003 Andhra Pradesh 141; Basappa v. Basamma, AIR 2004 Madras 390; and Rajendrakumar Bhandari v. Poosammal, AIR 1975 Madras 379, in support of her contention that the agreement of sale was not genuine and it was executed with the sole intention to dispossess the appellants. According to her, the agreement of sale was sham and only nominal and that collusive decree has been obtained with the aid of the collusive agreement. She would also submit that once the parties approach the court with unclean hands, they are not entitled to any equitable relief and, therefore, the execution, pursuant to the collusive decree, is not sustainable in law.
Rajendrakumar Bhandari vs Poosammal And Ors. on 19 June, 1974
13. Learned counsel for the appellants would also rely on the judgments in Kanakarathanammal v. Loganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1965 SC 271; Vidyadhar Krishnarao Mungi v. Usman Gani Saheb Konkani, AIR 1974 SC 663; P.Purushotham Reddy v. M/s.Pratap Steels Ltd., AIR 2003 Andhra Pradesh 141; Basappa v. Basamma, AIR 2004 Madras 390; and Rajendrakumar Bhandari v. Poosammal, AIR 1975 Madras 379, in support of her contention that the agreement of sale was not genuine and it was executed with the sole intention to dispossess the appellants. According to her, the agreement of sale was sham and only nominal and that collusive decree has been obtained with the aid of the collusive agreement. She would also submit that once the parties approach the court with unclean hands, they are not entitled to any equitable relief and, therefore, the execution, pursuant to the collusive decree, is not sustainable in law.
1