Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.26 seconds)Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 6 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Gurudwara Sahib vs Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr on 16 September, 2013
In a recent judgment in the case titled as Gurudwara Sahib vs
Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr (2014) 1 SCC 669, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reaffirmed the above proposition of law in following words:
"Even if the plaintiff is found to be in adverse possession, it
cannot seek a declaration to the effect that such adverse
possession has matured into ownership. Only if proceedings filed
against the appellant and appellant is arrayed as defendant that it
can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence."
Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Ors on 23 September, 2008
Infact in Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs
Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Others AIR 2009 SC 103, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court expressed its anguish and disapproval of concept of Adverse
possession in following words :
"Before parting with this case, we deem it appropriate to observe
that the law of adverse possession which ousts an owner on the
basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and
wholly disproportionate. The law as it exists is extremely harsh
for the true owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who had
illegally taken possession of the property of the true owner.
Thomas Cook (India) Limited vs Hotel Imperial And Ors. on 9 January, 2006
However, as already stated above, the law protects settled possession
from forcible dispossession even if it is that is of a tresspasser, in view of
Section 6 of Specific Relief Act. At the same time, the law also mandates that
an encroacher cannot seek injunction against true owner. Both the above
concepts of law have been dealt in detail by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the
celebrated judgment of Thomas Cook (India) Limited vs Hotel Imperial
And Ors. 127 (2006) DLT 431, where the Hon'ble Delhi High Court discussed
a plethora of judgments and ultimately held as follows:
"It is true that where a person is in settled possession of property,
even on the assumption that he has no right to remain in property,
he cannot be dispossessed by the owner except by recourse to law.
This principle is laid down in Section of the Specific Relief Act,
1963. That Section says that if any person is dispossessed without
his consent from immovable property otherwise than in due course
of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit,
recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that
may be set up in such suit. That a person without title but in
"settled" possession as against mere fugitive possession, can get
back possession if forcibly dispossed or rather, if dispossed
otherwise than by due process of law, has been laid down in
several cases.
Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead), By His Lrs. vs Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao on 9 August, 1989
It was so held by the Supreme Court in Yashwant
Singh v. Jagdish Singh AIR 1968, SC 620; Krishna Ram Mohale
v. Mrs. Shobha Venkata Rao , Ram Rattan v. State of U.P. and
State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmender Prasad Singh .
Ram Rattan And Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 November, 1976
It was so held by the Supreme Court in Yashwant
Singh v. Jagdish Singh AIR 1968, SC 620; Krishna Ram Mohale
v. Mrs. Shobha Venkata Rao , Ram Rattan v. State of U.P. and
State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmender Prasad Singh .
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh Etc on 17 January, 1989
It was so held by the Supreme Court in Yashwant
Singh v. Jagdish Singh AIR 1968, SC 620; Krishna Ram Mohale
v. Mrs. Shobha Venkata Rao , Ram Rattan v. State of U.P. and
State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmender Prasad Singh .