Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (5.84 seconds)Article 64 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gurudwara Sahib vs Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr on 16 September, 2013
It does not follow from the language used in
the statute. The large number of decisions of this Court and various
other decisions of the Privy Council, High Courts and of English
courts which have been discussed by us and observations made
in Halsbury's Laws based on various decisions indicate that suit
can be filed by the plaintiff on the basis of title acquired by way of
adverse possession or on the basis of possession under Articles 64
and 65. There is no bar under Article 65 or any of the provisions of
the Limitation Act, 1963 as against a plaintiff who has perfected
his title by virtue of adverse possession to sue to evict a person or
to protect his possession and plethora of decisions are to the effect
that by virtue of extinguishment of title of the owner, the person in
possession acquires absolute title and if actual owner dispossesses
another person after extinguishment of his title, he can be evicted
by such a person by filing of suit under Article 65 of the Act. Thus,
the decision of Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village
Sirthala [Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala,
(2014) 1 SCC 669 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 630] and of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court cannot be said to be laying down the correct
law. More so because of various decisions of this Court to the
contrary.
Nair Service Society Ltd vs Rev. Father K. C. Alexander & Ors on 12 February, 1968
And if the rightful owner
does not come forward and assert his title
by the process of law within the period
prescribed by the provisions of the Statute
of Limitations applicable to the case, his
right is forever extinguished, and the
possessory owner acquires an absolute
title.‟
The above statement was quoted with the approval
by this Court in Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C.
Alexander [Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C.
Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165]. Their Lordships at
para 22 emphatically stated: (AIR p. 1175)
„22.
T. Anjanappa And Ors vs Somalingappa And Anr on 22 August, 2006
This Court had an occasion to examine the
concept of adverse possession in T.
Anjanappa v. Somalingappa [T.
Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, (2006) 7 SCC 570].
Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs Manjit Kaur on 7 August, 2019
11. Mr. Vachher further submitted that the principle of adverse
possession is not merely a defense which may be taken but one which
is recognized in law as giving birth to a right to claim ownership itself.
Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered by three
learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal &
Ors. vs. Manjit Kaur & Ors.3 in support of the aforesaid submission.
Sarvinder Singh & Anr. vs Vipul Tandon on 14 July, 2022
Reliance was additionally placed on the judgement rendered by a
learned Judge of the Court in Sarvinder Singh and Anr. vs. Vipul
Tandon4 where, according to Mr. Vachher, on identical facts, the
Court had upon finding substance and merit ultimately framed issues
and accorded an opportunity to parties to adduce evidence in that
respect.
Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 21 March, 2012
14. Learned counsel appearing for the decree holder also placed
reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Maria
Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack de
Sequeira (Dead) Through LRs.5 to submit that mere long possession
is not sufficient to uphold a claim of title based upon the doctrine of
adverse possession. It was submitted that once the title of the decree
holder and the judgement debtors over the suit property had been
recognised, the mere possession of the first floor of the property by
the Objectors and their predecessors would not justify the grant of the
5
(2012) 5 SCC 370
EX.P. 50/2021 Page 7 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEHA
Signing Date:23.03.2023
17:23:50
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2040
prayers as made since their right would always remain subordinate to
those of the actual owner.
Pragatisheel Engineering Shramik ... vs Simplex Castings Ltd. 2 Wa/333/2016 ... on 13 September, 2019
The "investitive fact" is the disseisin and exercise of possession as
observed in Camp v. Camp [Camp v. Camp, 5 Conn 291 (1824)]
; Price v. Lyon [Price v. Lyon, 14 Conn 279, 290 (1841)] and Coal
Creek Consol.
East Indian Coal Co. Ltd. vs East Indian Coal Co. Ltd., Workers' ... on 28 July, 1960
Coal Co. v. East Tennessee Iron & Coal Co., 105
Tenn 563 : 59 SW 634, 636 (1900)] It has also been observed that
titles to property should not remain uncertain and in dispute, but
that continued de facto exercise and assertion of a right should be
conclusive evidence of the de jure existence of the right.