Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)
Mohamad Ansari vs Md. Hasan on 20 February, 2023 cites

Nathoo Lal vs Durga Prasad on 9 April, 1954

In this connection, he referred to the various decisions reported in AIR 1954 SC 355 (Nathoo Lal v. Durga Prasad); (1973) 1 SCC 672 : AIR 1973 SC 1130 (Brij Kishore Prasad Singh v. Jaleshwar Prasad Singh) and AIR 1959 Pat 331 (Santan Narain v. Saran Narain). In the case of Nathoo Lal (AIR 1954 SC 355), in paragraph 12 of the judgment, it was observed that the law presumes in favour of continuity of possession. It was a suit for possession of a certain property. The Courts had found the plaintiff to be in possession of a house even during the lifetime of one Laxmi in whose favour a deed of gift had been executed. It was held that even if the tenant residing in the house had vacated it and the plaintiff did not lock it, his possession would be presumed to continue till he was dispossessed by some one. This decision has no application at all to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 50 - G Hasan - Full Document

Brij Kishore Prasad Singh And Others vs Jaleshwar Prasad Singh And Others on 2 March, 1973

The case reported in (1973) 1 SCC 672 : AIR 1973 SC 1130 (Brij Kishore Prasad Singh's case) is also on different facts. There a suit for partition had been compromised but no decree had been passed. It was held that a subsequent suit for recovery of Khas possession was not barred. The case of Santan Narain (reported in AIR 1959 Pat 331) was one in which the plaintiff's claim for partition of properties had been dismissed on the ground that the suit was barred by res judicata. The previous suit had been decreed on compromise and a preliminary decree had been drawn up in terms thereof. In the latter suit out of which appeal to the High Court was preferred, the plaintiff claimed 14 Second Appeal No. 247 of 2013 that the parties continued in joint possession according to their shares and that there had been no change in his possession as the previous partition decree proved to be infructuous. The only question urged in that case was that the present suit was not barred and that there was evidence which proved that the previous partition had not been effected and the parties continued to remain in joint possession of the disputed land as cosharers. It was held by this Court on facts, relying upon the oral evidence adduced by the parties, that they continued to remain in possession as before and the allotments made to the parties by the final decree were not brought into effect. It was further held that a co-sharer had a right to seek partition if for some reason there had not been actual breaking up of the title and possession of the co-sharer by actual possession by each of them of the specific portion of the joint property said to have been allotted to them; but the position will be different where there has been actual breaking up of the title and possession of the co-sharer. In the present case, it is clear from the evidence on record that the parties to the suit have been exercising separate possession not only over the properties admitted by the plaintiff to have been partitioned before the survey, but also over the properties claimed by the plaintiff to have remained unpartitioned after the survey. The separate dealings by the plaintiff as well as by the defendants in respect of their specific shares are ample proof of the above fact. The above decision, in my opinion, does not assist the appellant. In the present case, the defendants claimed that all the properties had been partitioned, some before the survey and some after the survey. The pre-survey partition was admitted by Shri Roy. As regards the post-survey partition, it has been shown above that the parties were not only exercising their respective possession over the property but were also during with it by executing various documents in respect of their specific shares. Thus, it must be found that the defendants had proved their case of partition of the remaining lands after the survey. Separate transactions by members of a joint family may not by themselves establish separation, but mutual transactions between two members of a family stand on an entirely different footing and they furnish a very strong evidence of separation. In order to prove partition, it must be established that the parties altered and intended to alter their title to the property and that there was a definite and unambiguous indication by the members of the family to separate and to enjoy their respective shares in severalty. In the present case, there is definite and unambiguous indication of this fact getting back to the year 1921, at least forty years before the filing of the present suit. In face of such an indication, it is not open to the plaintiff- appellant to make up and say that some of the properties still remained joint. The presumption of jointness had been sufficiently rebutted by good and cogent evidence in the present case. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case and the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, I have no hesitation in holding, in agreement with the 15 Second Appeal No. 247 of 2013 trial Court, that the defendants have proved their case of partition of the suit properties."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Santan Narain Tewari vs Saran Narain Tewari And Ors. on 14 February, 1959

In this connection, he referred to the various decisions reported in AIR 1954 SC 355 (Nathoo Lal v. Durga Prasad); (1973) 1 SCC 672 : AIR 1973 SC 1130 (Brij Kishore Prasad Singh v. Jaleshwar Prasad Singh) and AIR 1959 Pat 331 (Santan Narain v. Saran Narain). In the case of Nathoo Lal (AIR 1954 SC 355), in paragraph 12 of the judgment, it was observed that the law presumes in favour of continuity of possession. It was a suit for possession of a certain property. The Courts had found the plaintiff to be in possession of a house even during the lifetime of one Laxmi in whose favour a deed of gift had been executed. It was held that even if the tenant residing in the house had vacated it and the plaintiff did not lock it, his possession would be presumed to continue till he was dispossessed by some one. This decision has no application at all to the facts of the present case.
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1