Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.96 seconds)

Neelavathi And Ors vs M. Natarajan And Ors on 30 November, 1979

68. The plea of the 1st respondent presupposes that a plaintiff in a suit for partition claiming to be in joint possession must prove actual physical possession, but this is not the law. As observed in Neelavathi (8 supra), in the case of co-owners, to continue to be in joint possession in law, it is not necessary that the plaintiff should be in actual possession of the whole or part of the property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 123 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Sriram Pasricha vs Jagannath & Ors on 24 August, 1976

63. The concept of co-ownership was explained in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath12, where it was stated that jurisprudentially it is not correct to say that a co-owner of a property is not its owner. He owns every part of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property. The position will change only when partition takes place.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 439 - P K Goswami - Full Document
1   2 3 Next