Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.62 seconds)
Alla Baksh vs Mohd. Hussain on 11 September, 1995 cites

Danappa Revappa Kolli vs Gurupadappa Mallappa Pattanashetti on 23 September, 1989

In my opinion, the animus has been indicated by persons claim to be owners of the property under the invalid deed of title and therefore, the Decision in Danappa Revappa Kolli v. Gurupadappa Mallappa Pattanashetti, is also of not help and assistance to the appellant, as the Decision is distinguishable on facts as well. In the present, case the question for consideration before the Court was as to what would bo the nature of possession of a person, who had no title of the property and who has entered into possession of the property under an invalid Deed of Transfer and there is any such question that if such a person continues in possession for a period more than prescribed limitation for suit, whether such person would acquire title by adverse possession?
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Lajwanti vs Safa Chand on 29 January, 1924

In second appeal Mr. Hyder Hussein on behaff of the defendants - appellants argued that the title which Mt. Maina acquired by prescription should enure to the benefit of the heirs of the last male owner of the property in suit and it is agreed that the defendants are such heirs. The learned Counsel supported his argument by quoting the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of LAJWANTI v. SAFA CHAND (A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 121). We are of opinion that the decision relied upon does not bear out the contention which the learned counsel has raised on behalf of his clients. In that case the widows all along professed to hold the property for their lives only and there was a judicial decision in respect of their interest in the property which they held and that decision was that they held the property merely for their lives. This is not the case here.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 31 - Full Document
1   2 Next