Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)

A. S. N. Naina Pillai Marakayar vs T. A. R A. R. M. Ramanathan Chettiar And ... on 22 December, 1916

Furthermore, in 'Nainapillai Marakayar v. Ramanathan Chettiar', AIR (11) 1924 P C 65 at p. 67 their Lordships stated, with respect to the acquisition of the right of occupying land permanently in India as a tenant, that such right can be obtained only by custom or by a grant from the owner if the latter has power to grant such a right, or under an Act of the legislature. In the present instance no custom is pleaded and there is no Act of the legislature conferring permanent rights on the defendants and the settlement on which they rely is prohibited by the statute. It was, therefore, in my opinion, not open to the Court of appeal below to hold that the defendants had acquired a right of tenancy by prescription.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 86 - Full Document

Madhavrao Vaman vs Raghunath Venkatesh on 10 July, 1923

This matter was later on considered by the "Privy Council in 'Madhavrao Waman v. Raghunath Venkatesh, 50 Ind App 255 which had the occasion to consider the decision of the Bombay High Court, and although their Lordships did not expressly over-rule that decision still they expressed themselves as saying that it is somewhat difficult to see how a stranger can acquire title by adverse possession of twelve years of lands the alienation of which is in the interest of the State prohibited.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 28 - Full Document
1