Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)Thakur Kishan Singh vs Arvind Kumar on 7 September, 1994
"7. It is to be reiterated that under
section 100 CPC jurisdiction of the High
Court to entertain a second appeal is
confined only to such appeals which
involve a substantial question of law and it
5
does not confer any jurisdiction on the
High Court to interfere with pure questions
of fact while exercising its jurisdiction
under section 100 CPC. That apart, at the
time of disposing of the matter the High
Court did not even notice the question of
law formulated by it at the time of
admission of the second appeal as there is
no reference of it in the impugned
judgment. Further, the fact findings courts
after appreciating the evidence held that
the defendant entered into the possession
of the premises as a batai, that is to say, as
a tenant and his possession was
permissive and there was no pleading or
proof as to when it became adverse and
hostile. These findings recorded by the two
courts below were based on proper
appreciation of evidence and the material
on record and there was no perversity,
illegality or irregularity in those findings. If
the defendant got the possession of suit
land as a lessee or under a batai
agreement then from the permissive
possession it is for him to establish by
cogent and convincing evidence to show
hostile animus and possession adverse to
the knowledge of the real owner. Mere
possession for a long time does not result
in converting permissive possession into
adverse possession (Thakur Kishan Singh
v. Arvind Kumar (1994 (6) SCC 591). Hence
the High Court ought not to have
interfered with the findings of fact recorded
by both the courts below."
Kanhaiyalal And Ors. vs Anupkumar And Ors. on 27 November, 2002
8. The position has been reiterated in Kanhaiyalal and
Ors. v. Anupkumar and Ors. (2003 (1) SCC 430), Mathakala
Krishnaiah v. V. Rajagopal (2004(10) SCC 676), Smt. Ram
6
Sakhi Devi v. Chhatra Devi & Ors. (JT 2005 (6) SC 167),
Sasikumar & Ors. v. Kunnath Chellappan Nair & Ors. (2005
(12) SCC 588), Gian Dass v. The Gram Panchayat Village
Sunner Kalan & Ors. (2006 (6) SCC 271), Shah Mansukhlal
Chhaganial (d) through Lrs. V. Gohil Amarsing Govindbhai (d)
through Lrs. (2006(13) SCALE 99).
Mathakala Krishnaiah vs V. Rajagopal on 15 October, 2004
8. The position has been reiterated in Kanhaiyalal and
Ors. v. Anupkumar and Ors. (2003 (1) SCC 430), Mathakala
Krishnaiah v. V. Rajagopal (2004(10) SCC 676), Smt. Ram
6
Sakhi Devi v. Chhatra Devi & Ors. (JT 2005 (6) SC 167),
Sasikumar & Ors. v. Kunnath Chellappan Nair & Ors. (2005
(12) SCC 588), Gian Dass v. The Gram Panchayat Village
Sunner Kalan & Ors. (2006 (6) SCC 271), Shah Mansukhlal
Chhaganial (d) through Lrs. V. Gohil Amarsing Govindbhai (d)
through Lrs. (2006(13) SCALE 99).
Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi vs Chhatra Devi And Ors on 12 July, 2005
8. The position has been reiterated in Kanhaiyalal and
Ors. v. Anupkumar and Ors. (2003 (1) SCC 430), Mathakala
Krishnaiah v. V. Rajagopal (2004(10) SCC 676), Smt. Ram
6
Sakhi Devi v. Chhatra Devi & Ors. (JT 2005 (6) SC 167),
Sasikumar & Ors. v. Kunnath Chellappan Nair & Ors. (2005
(12) SCC 588), Gian Dass v. The Gram Panchayat Village
Sunner Kalan & Ors. (2006 (6) SCC 271), Shah Mansukhlal
Chhaganial (d) through Lrs. V. Gohil Amarsing Govindbhai (d)
through Lrs. (2006(13) SCALE 99).
Sasikumar And Ors vs Kunnath Chellappan Nair And Ors on 19 October, 2005
8. The position has been reiterated in Kanhaiyalal and
Ors. v. Anupkumar and Ors. (2003 (1) SCC 430), Mathakala
Krishnaiah v. V. Rajagopal (2004(10) SCC 676), Smt. Ram
6
Sakhi Devi v. Chhatra Devi & Ors. (JT 2005 (6) SC 167),
Sasikumar & Ors. v. Kunnath Chellappan Nair & Ors. (2005
(12) SCC 588), Gian Dass v. The Gram Panchayat Village
Sunner Kalan & Ors. (2006 (6) SCC 271), Shah Mansukhlal
Chhaganial (d) through Lrs. V. Gohil Amarsing Govindbhai (d)
through Lrs. (2006(13) SCALE 99).
Gian Dass vs The Gram Panchayat, Village Sunner ... on 21 July, 2006
8. The position has been reiterated in Kanhaiyalal and
Ors. v. Anupkumar and Ors. (2003 (1) SCC 430), Mathakala
Krishnaiah v. V. Rajagopal (2004(10) SCC 676), Smt. Ram
6
Sakhi Devi v. Chhatra Devi & Ors. (JT 2005 (6) SC 167),
Sasikumar & Ors. v. Kunnath Chellappan Nair & Ors. (2005
(12) SCC 588), Gian Dass v. The Gram Panchayat Village
Sunner Kalan & Ors. (2006 (6) SCC 271), Shah Mansukhlal
Chhaganial (d) through Lrs. V. Gohil Amarsing Govindbhai (d)
through Lrs. (2006(13) SCALE 99).
Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs Sohan Lal (Dead)By Lrs on 29 November, 1999
In Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal (2000 (1) SCC 434),
this Court in para 10, has stated thus:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1