Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.17 seconds)
Jagannath Marwari And Ors. vs Chandni Bibi And Anr. on 21 June, 1921 cites

Upendra Nath Banerjee And Anr. vs Umesh Chandra Banerjee on 20 April, 1910

9. We may add finally that much stress was laid by the appellants on the fast that they have built a costly structure on the parcel known as the Marwaripati property. This, however, does not create any real difficulty. The Subordinate Judge has not overlooked the equitable considerations which have been held applicable in such circumstances, as was explained in the cases of Upendra Nath Banerjee v. Umesh Chandra Banerjee 6 Ind. Cas. 343 12 C.L.J. 25 : 15 C.W.N. 375, Narayan Lal Gupta v. (sic) Lal Gupta 14 Ind. Cas.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Hardit Singh vs Gurmukh Singh on 29 January, 1918

Indeed before this action was brought, there was no attempt on the part of the defendants to rely on adverse possession; their pretence was that they were the rightful owners, and one of them, the first defendant, has pledged his outh in support of that untrue allegation in the witness-box in this suit; they cannot consistently urge that from 1901 the first defendant began to hold adversely to the knowledge of the rightful owner; See the observations of Lord Macanaghten in Corea v. Appuhami (1918) A.C. 895 : 87 L.J.P.C. 146, Reliance may further be placed on the judgments of Lord Buckmaster in Hurdit Singh v. Gurmukh Singh Ind. Cas.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Thomas vs Thomas on 29 May, 1896

which emphasise the principle that if possession may either be lawful or unlawful, in the absence of evidence, it must be assumed to be the former, or, in the language of Wood, V.C. in Thomas v. Thomas (1855) 2 K & J. 79 at p. 80 : 25 L.J. Ch. 159 : 1 Jur. (N.S.) 10 60 : 4 W.R. 135 : 69 E.R. 701 : 110 B.R. 107 possession is never considered adverse, if it can be referred to a lawful title.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Dijendra Narain Roy vs Purnendu Narain Roy And Ors. on 11 January, 1910

6. We are of opinion that this contention is not well founded. The evidence clearly establishes that Jagannath was not only a joint owner, but that he undertook to look after the share of Pannalal at his express request. The burden lies upon him to establish when he became faithless to the trust imposed upon him and asserted a hostile title in himself to the knowledge of the rightful owner. He has not ventured upon an explanation of his conduct; on the other hand, he has repudiated the title set up by the plaintiffs as altogether unfounded and has falsely denied that he had ever paid a proportionate share of the usufruct to Lachmi Bibi as claiming title through Pannalal. The two circumstances relied upon by the defendants in proof of assertion of hostile title to the knowledge of the rightful owner are by no means conclusive. The fact that a substantial building has been erected on one of the plots by the defendants is clearly not conclusive proof of ouster. As was pointed out in Divendra Narain v. Purnendu Narain 5 Ind. Cas.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next