Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)
Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr on 15 December, 2003 cites

R.Balakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2003

The thought has prevailed incessantly, till date, the last and latest one in the chain of decisions being Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani  (2003) 7 SCC 350. In-between, to quote a few out of severals, in Lallu Yeshwant Singh (dead) by his legal representative Vs. Rao Jagdish Singh and others  (1968) 2 SCR 203, this Court has held that a landlord did commit trespass when he forcibly entered his own land in the possession of a tenant whose tenancy has expired. The Court turned down the submission that under the general law applicable to a lessor and a lessee there was no rule or principle which made it obligatory for the lessor to resort to Court and obtain an order for possession before he could eject the lessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 563 - Full Document

Yar Muhammad And Anr. vs Lakshmi Das And Ors. on 28 October, 1957

The court quoted with approval the law as stated by a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Yar Mohammad Vs. Lakshmi Das (AIR 1959 All. 1,4), "Law respects possession even if there is no title to support it. It will not permit any person to take the law in his own hands and to dispossess a person in actual possession without having recourse to a court. No person can be allowed to become a judge in his own cause."
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 89 - R Dayal - Full Document

Nair Service Society Ltd vs Rev. Father K. C. Alexander & Ors on 12 February, 1968

In the oft- quoted case of Nair Service Society Ltd. Vs. K.C. Alexander and Ors.  (1968) 3 SCR 163, this Court held that a person in possession of land in assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. When the facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides. The court quoted Loft's maxim  'Possessio contra omnes valet praeter eur cui ius sit possessionis (He that hath possession hath right against all but him that hath the very right)' and said, "A defendant in such a case must show in himself or his predecessor a valid legal title, or probably a possession prior to the plaintiff's and thus be able to raise a presumption prior in time".
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 390 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

M. C. Chockalingam & Ors vs V. Manickavasagam & Ors on 31 October, 1973

In M.C. Chockalingam and Ors. Vs. V. Manickavasagam and Ors.  (1974) 1 SCC 48, this Court held that the law forbids forcible dispossession, even with the best of title. In Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his Lrs. Vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao  (1989) 4 SCC 131, it was held that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 176 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Munshi Ram And Others vs Delhi Administration on 27 November, 1967

In Munshi Ram & Ors.'s case (supra), it was held that no one, including the true owner, has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case unless he is evicted in the due course of law, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner. But merely stray or even intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be settled possession, extending over a sufficiently long period of time and acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. The rightful owner may re-enter and re- instate himself provided he does not use more force than is necessary. Such entry will be viewed only as resistance to an intrusion upon his possession which has never been lost. A stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true owner even by using necessary force.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 489 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Horam And Ors. vs Rex on 3 March, 1949

In the cases of Munshi Ram and Ors.(supra) and Puran Singh and Ors. (supra), the Court has approved the statement of law made in Horam Vs. Rex  AIR 1949 Allahabad 564, wherein a distinction was drawn between the trespasser in the process of acquiring possession and the trespasser who had already accomplished or completed his possession wherein the true owner may be treated to have acquiesced in; while the former can be obstructed and turned out by the true owner even by using reasonable force, the latter, may be dispossessed by the true owner only by having recourse to the due process of law for re-acquiring possession over his property.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Sri Dasnam Naga Sanyasi And Another vs Allahabad Development Authority, ... on 25 January, 1994

Sri Dasnam Naga Sanyasi and Anr.'s case relates to the stage of grant of temporary injunction wherein, in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the decision of the court below declining the discretionary relief of ad-interim injunction to the plaintiff on the ground that failure to claim declaration of title in the facts of that case spoke against the conduct of the plaintiff and was considered to be 'unusual'.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Kallappa Rama Londa vs Shivappa Nagappa Aparaj And Others on 7 June, 1994

In Kallappa Rama Londa's case, the learned Single Judge has upheld the maintainability of a suit merely seeking injunction, without declaration of title, and on dealing with several decided cases the learned Judge has agreed with the proposition that where the suit for declaration of title and injunction is filed and the title is not clear, the question of title will have to be kept open without denying the plaintiff's claim for injunction in view of the fact that the plaintiff has been in possession and there is nothing to show that the plaintiff has gained possession by any unfair means just prior to the suit. That is the correct position of law.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 Next