Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.59 seconds)
Sh. Shukar Harijan vs Smt. Sushila Devi on 25 March, 2011 cites

M. Kallappa Setty vs M.V. Lakshminarayana Rao on 1 May, 1972

13. The counsel for the appellant in support of his contention has also place reliance on M.Kallappa Setty vs. M.V.L. Rao, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2299 and Daulat Singh and another vs. Tulsiram and another, AIR 1990 Madhya Pradesh 348 in support of his contention. It has been held in these authorities that a trespasser has no right to disturb peaceful possession of long time of any person on any suit property and he cannot reap benefit of his illegal act Ex.DW 1/P6 proved on the record by the appellant reveals that the respondent had admitted that the appellant was in possession of the suit premises.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 130 - Full Document

Sunil Kapoor vs Himmat Singh & Ors on 22 September, 2008

7. On behalf of the appellant, it has been argued that the impugned judgment has not in any manner re-appreciated or re- examined the documentary evidence which had been examined in an in-depth detail by the trial court; trial court, on comparison of each and every document, i.e. PW 1 / 2, PW 1/3 and PW 1 / 4, had returned a categorical fact finding that the said documents were procured; the first page of Ex. PW 1 / 2 was in original typing whereas second page was a carbon copy. Ex. PW 1/3 also suffers from the same defect; the said document was in two parts; the first part was in carbon copy, later part was in original typing. For all the aforenoted reasons, the trial court vide a reasoned judgment RSA No. 286/2005 Page 6 of 12 had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The first appellate court has not appreciated these fact findings and had perversely upset the finding of the trial judge. It is pointed out that the impugned judgment had only relied upon a death certificate produced by the defendant showing that his father had died in the year 1982; on this alone, the suit of the plaintiff had been decreed. It is submitted that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment reported in CM(M) No. 1212/2007 Sunil Kapoor Vs. Himmat Singh & Ors. to substantiate the submission that an agreement to sell, receipt and will are not documents of title and such documents by themselves do not entitle the plaintiff to claim a decree of possession of the suit property. It is further pointed out that Ex. PW 1/A which was the power of attorney purported to have been executed by the plaintiff Smt. Sushila Devi in favour of her husband Sh. Pratap Singh has also not been proved. Attention has been drawn to the testimony of PW -1 wherein he had stated that he does not know anything about the case of the plaintiff. It is pointed out that in these circumstances, reliance upon Ex. PW 1/A was uncalled for. Suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed on this ground as well.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 109 - H Kohli - Full Document

Daulat Singh And Anr. vs Tulsiram And Anr. on 30 June, 1989

13. The counsel for the appellant in support of his contention has also place reliance on M.Kallappa Setty vs. M.V.L. Rao, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2299 and Daulat Singh and another vs. Tulsiram and another, AIR 1990 Madhya Pradesh 348 in support of his contention. It has been held in these authorities that a trespasser has no right to disturb peaceful possession of long time of any person on any suit property and he cannot reap benefit of his illegal act Ex.DW 1/P6 proved on the record by the appellant reveals that the respondent had admitted that the appellant was in possession of the suit premises.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1