Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.29 seconds)N. Varada Pillai vs Jeevarathnammal on 20 June, 1919
In Varatha Pillai's case
(1) Duraisani had got into possession only after the
petition and claimed to retain possession only under the
gift mentioned in it. The petition was therefore admissible
in evidence to show the nature of her possession. In the
present case Harnam Kaur had been in possession before the
date of the document and to admit it in evidence to show the
nature of her possession subsequent to it would be to treat
it as operating to destroy the nature of the
(1)(1918) 46 I.A. 285.
Pandappa Mahalingappa vs Shivalingappa Murteppa on 13 August, 1943
The High Court also referred to the case of
Pandappa Mahalingappa v. Shivalingappa This case was based
on Lajwanti v. Safa Chand and it would be enough to refer to
" It was then argued that the widows could only possess for
themselves; that the last widow Devi would then acquire a
personal title; and that the respondents and not the
plaintiffs were the heirs of Devi. This is quite to
understand the nature of the widows' possession. The, Hindu
widow' as often pointed out, is not a life renter, but has a
widow's estate-that is to say, a widow's estate in her
deceased husband's estate. If possessing as widow she
possesses adversely to any one as to certain parcels., she
does not acquire the parcels as stridhan, but she makes them
good to her husband's estate."
Lajwanti vs Safa Chand on 29 January, 1924
Lajwanti's Case therefore was concerned with
a female who was admittedly an heir. That is not the case
here. As we have already stated, the special custom under
which alone Harnam Kaur could have become an heir of Ram
Ditta has not been proved. On the case as made and the
evidence before us, it must be held that Harnam Kaur could
never have been the heir of Ram Ditta. That being so, it
was impossible for her to have acquired by adverse
possession title to property as his heir or to make such
observation of the Judicial Committee in sham Koer v.
applies to this case
" Assuming that Bhau Natli Singh was a member of an
undivided Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, as
the Lower Court found and the High Court assumed, neither
his widow nor his son's widow would be entitled to anything
more than maintenance out of his estate. Their possession,
therefore, of the three villages in question would be
adverse to the reversionary heirs unless it was the result
of the arrangement with them. If the possession was
(1) (1902) 29 I.A. 132, 135, 136.
The Registration Act, 1908
1