Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.29 seconds)
Sant Singh vs Jagjit Singh And Others on 28 October, 2024 cites

Sant Singh vs Jagjeet Singh Sawhney (Since Deceased) ... on 9 January, 2018

vii. That as per the plaintiffs, the portion which was in occupation of the defendant as plaintiff in the said suit no. 164/2000 is less than the portion which is under his unauthorized occupation and also that the plaintiffs averred that same was done malafidely and intentionally in order to usurp RCA No 68/18 Sant Singh Vs Jagjit Singh Sawhney & Ors Page no 4/30 the added unauthorized construction in respect of property bearing no. 2452-56, Basti Punjabian, Roshnara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. viii. That the plaintiffs challenged the right of the defendant seeking injunction on the right of adverse possession and that the plaintiffs submitted that on 25.04.2001, they made a statement that the defendant shall not be dispossessed without due process of law and thereafter the suit of the defendant (plaintiff in the said suit) was dismissed as withdrawn. ix. That the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant cannot allege and claim adverse possession of the premises on the basis of the long possession over 30 years as it is disputed because since inception, the possession of the defendant was unauthorized but it was not adverse to the true owner of the property.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R K Gauba - Full Document

T. Anjanappa And Ors vs Somalingappa And Anr on 22 August, 2006

42. In the present case the Defendant in his written statement has merely mentioned the fact of his having become the owner and his remaining in possession for the past 30 years by way of adverse possession. Adverse possession is being claimed by the Defendant merely on the basis of long possession. The Defendant is completely silent as to how and when the possession of the Defendant became adverse to the title of the Plaintiff or whether the Plaintiff had knowledge about the possession of the Defendant. The pleading of the Defendant in his written statement is completely silent on this aspect. Since the defendants were unable to demonstrate holding of the RCA No 68/18 Sant Singh Vs Jagjit Singh Sawhney & Ors Page no 23/30 possession hostile to the real owner and also the knowledge of the owner about the same as per their defence, their mere long possession cannot be said to have ripen into possessory title for want of the animus possidendi as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of T Anjanappa Vs Somalingappa & Others (2006)7 SCC 570, Brijesh Kumar & Anr Vs. Shardabai ( Dead) By LRs & Ors (2019) 9 SCC 369, Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao, M Radheshyam Ian Babu vs Sandhya & Ors .
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 303 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Saroop Singh vs Banto & Ors on 7 October, 2005

Since the defendants have failed to demonstrate their possession adverse to the title of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the period of limitation of 12 years as prescribed under Article 65 of the schedule to the limitation act began to run for want of the requisite animus and thus it cannot be said that the right of the plaintiff became extinguished since the period of prescription had not even commenced as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Saroop Singh vs Banto ( 2005) 8 SCC 330.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 102 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil & Ors. Etc. ... vs Balwant And Balasaheb Babusaheb ... on 6 January, 1995

In Annasaheb Bapu Saheb Patil Vs Balwant AIR 1995 SC 895 held that Ar- ticle 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act prescribes that for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title, the limitation of 12 years begins to run from the date of the defendant's interest becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Adverse possession means a hostile assertion i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65, burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his ti- tle on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e pos- session was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The person who bases his title on adverse possession, therefore, must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. Where possession could be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse. The reason being that a person whose possession can be referred to a lawful title will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to another's title. One who holds possession on behalf of another, does not by mere denial of that other's title make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. Therefore, a person who enters into possession having a lawful title, cannot divest another of that title by pretending that he had no title at all.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 213 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Kurella Naga Druva Vydaya Bhaskara Rao vs Galla Jani Kamma Alias Nacharamma on 4 August, 2008

53. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kurella Naga Druva Vudya Bhaskara Rao Vs Galla Jani Kamma Alias Nacharamma, 2008 (11) SCALE 160 while affirming the decision rendered in the case of Abdulla Bin Ali Vs Glappa (1985) 2 SCC 54 held that the suit treating the defendants as trespassers on the ground of the denial of title would only lie in a civil court and not in the revenue court under the tenancy act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 55 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 3 Next