Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.33 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Kushro S. Gandhi & Ors vs N.A. Gajdar & Ors on 27 November, 1968
Mr. Sharan has strongly relied upon a decision of this Court in
Khushro S. Gandhi & Ors. v. N.A. Guzder (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. [AIR
1970 SC 1468] but the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case
inasmuch as therein no order in terms of Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure was passed. The question which arose for consideration in the
said case was as to whether an interim order could be passed in a pending
civil revision application which had nothing to do with the issue involved
therein.
State Of U.P vs Amar Singh Etc on 1 October, 1996
It may be true that only because the property in dispute had been
mutated in the name of one of the parties to the suit, the same would not be
conclusive and binding between the parties. But although by reason of entry
in the record of right one does not derive any title in relation to the property
in dispute, as has been held in State of U.P. v. Amar Singh & Ors.[(1997) 1
SCC 977] and [(1997) 7 SCC] & Balwant Singh & Anr. v. Daulat Singh
(Dead) by L.Rs. (1997) 7 SCC 137] whereupon Mr. Sharan placed strong
reliance, but in the instant case, as noticed hereinbefore, the title of Mangal
Singh vis--vis the First Respondent herein had never been in dispute. The
question which has been raised in the suit is as to whether the appellant
herein had acquired any right, title or interest in the property by adverse
possession. As the appellant claims acquisition of title by prescription, it
would necessarily lead to the conclusion that Mangal Singh had title in
respect of the property in dispute.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Balwant Singh & Anr. Etc vs Daulat Singh (Dead) By L.Rs. &Ors on 7 July, 1997
It may be true that only because the property in dispute had been
mutated in the name of one of the parties to the suit, the same would not be
conclusive and binding between the parties. But although by reason of entry
in the record of right one does not derive any title in relation to the property
in dispute, as has been held in State of U.P. v. Amar Singh & Ors.[(1997) 1
SCC 977] and [(1997) 7 SCC] & Balwant Singh & Anr. v. Daulat Singh
(Dead) by L.Rs. (1997) 7 SCC 137] whereupon Mr. Sharan placed strong
reliance, but in the instant case, as noticed hereinbefore, the title of Mangal
Singh vis--vis the First Respondent herein had never been in dispute. The
question which has been raised in the suit is as to whether the appellant
herein had acquired any right, title or interest in the property by adverse
possession. As the appellant claims acquisition of title by prescription, it
would necessarily lead to the conclusion that Mangal Singh had title in
respect of the property in dispute.
1