Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Smt. Geeta vs Sh. Bal Kishan on 26 April, 2014 cites

Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 21 March, 2012

23.The lower court below while considering the facts and evidence of the matter has relied upon the judgment AIR 2012 SC 1727 titled as Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (dead) through LRs, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that caretaker, watchman or servant could never acquire interest in property irrespective of his long possession. Caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand. The aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the present proceedings between the appellants and the respondent. The appellants are in possession of the suit property since long however merely possession of appellants does not confirm right in the suit property in favour of the appellants. Thus, I have no hesitation to say that appellants are occupying the suit property in the RCA No.: 11/14 capacity of permissive one. The findings of the ld. Trial court calls no interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1056 - Full Document

Jagdish vs Brij Lal on 15 September, 2006

34.Ld. counsel for the appellants argued that the court cannot direct the appellants by way of mandatory injunction to handover the vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent. The ld. Trial Court has already dealt with the preposition and has infact held that as per Sections 38 and 39 of RCA No.: 11/14 Specific Relief Act suit for specific performance can be filed and there is no necessity to file suit for possession. The judgment so relied upon by the ld. Trial Court 2006 (4) RCA (Civil) page no.777, 2007 (1) PLR page no. 398 titled as Jagdish Vs. Brij Lal wherein it has been held that suit for possession by way of mandatory injunction against the licensee by cancellation of his licence is maintainable and no ad valorem court fee is payable in such a suit. The same is the case herein. The respondent has already given the notice to quit to the appellants which is admitted by appellant no.1 in her cross examination.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 29 - Full Document
1