ADVERSE POSSESSION

Sl No.	Title	Coram	Date of Judgement	Subject	HeadNotes
1	KALIPADA CHAKRABORTI AND ANOTHER Vs. PALANI BALA DEVI AND OTHERS.	Coram: MUKHERJEA, B.K.	16/01/1953	Hindu law-Religious endowments-Shebaiti right-Succession by widow-Nature and extent of widow's rights-Alienation by widow-Suit by reversioner against alienee-Limitation-Article applicable-Starting point-Adverse possession against widow, whethe	Though there is an element in Bhebaiti right which has the legal characteristics of property, shebaitship is property of a peculiar and anomalous character and it cannot come under the category of immoveable property as it is known in law. On	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
2	NATVARLAL PUNJABHAI AND ANOTHER Vs. DADUBHAI MANUBHAI AND OTHERS.	Coram: MUKHERJEA, B.K.	18/11/1953	Hindu law-Widow-Surrender of estate after third persons have acquired title by adverse possession against widow-Validity- Right of reversioner to recover possession before death of widow-Legal nature of surrender Power of court to impose co	Where a Hindu widow surrenders her widow's estate to the reversioners, after a third person has acquired title to the properties by adverse possession against her, the reversioners are entitled to recover possession of the propertie	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
3	WUNTAKAL YALPI CHENABASAVANA GOWD Vs. RAO BAHADUR Y. MAHABALESHWARAPPA AND ANOTHER.	Coram: MUKHERJEA, B.K.	15/04/1954	Co-sharers--Joint property-Adverse possession by a co- sharer against another co-sharer-Ouster--Principles applicable thereto.	Once it is hold that a possession of a co-sharer has become adverse to the other co- sharer as a result of ouster, the mere assertion of his joint title by the dispossessed co-sharer would not interrupt the running of adverse	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
4	SHREEMATI KASHI BAI Vs. SUDHA RANI GHOSE AND OTHERS	Coram: KAPUR, J.L.	25/02/1958	Adverse possession--Coal mine--Trespass and intermittent Working --Whether can constitute adverse possession.	The appellants and the respondents were lessees of coal mining rights in adjoining areas. In 1917 the predecessors in interest of the appellants trespassed into a portion Df the lands leased to the predecessors in interest of the responde	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
5	RAM RAN BIJAI SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. BEHARI SINGH ALIAS BAGANDHA SINGH	Coram: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B., WANCHOO, K.N., GUPTA, K.C. DAS, SHAH, J.C., AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA	25/04/1963	Land Reforms-Lands mortgaged-After redemption possession sought but refused by-Persons in possession vacate-Claim of occupancy right-Right by adverse possession-Property vesting in state-Construction of Statute-Suit lands if in "khas possess	The appellants' ancestors had executed a registered rehan bond of the suit land along with other lands. In 1941 the appellants paid off the amount due on the rehan bond and entered satisfaction on the bond. On the redemption of the bond t	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
6	ATYAM VEERRAJU AND OTHERS Vs. PECHETTI VENKANNA AND OTHERS	Coram: SARKAR, A.K., HIDAYATULLAH, M., DAYAL, RAGHUBAR, MUDHOLKAR, J.R., BACHAWAT, R.S.	20/09/1965	Adverse Possession-Suit lands owned by Deity-Sanad executed by trustee in 1851 in favour of defendants--Defendants claiming permanent lease-Nature of rights conferred could not be presumed in favour of defendants without production of sa	The suit lands belonged to a Hindu Deity. In 1851 the then Archaka and de facto trustee of the temple arranged with P the great grandfather of the first defendant, that the latter would supply one fourth seer of gingili oil every day to the	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
7	T. K. LAKSHMANA IYER & ORS. Vs. STATE OF MADRAS & ORS.	Coram: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ), BACHAWAT, R.S., VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A., HEGDE, K.S., GROVER, A.N.	26/03/1968	Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (2 of 1927)-S. 44B inserted by Act 11 of 1934-Inams granted by Hindu King for performance of services at temple-Whether Included melwaram rights only or kudiwaram also-Whether granted in respect	Inams were granted by Hindu kings for performance of certain servicer, (e.g. watchmen, music players etc.) in the ancient temple, of Thirumoolanathaswami. The inams were confirmed by the British Government. For over 80 years the inams were-e	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
8	RAJ KUMAR MOHAN SINGH & ORS. Vs. RAJ KUMAR PASUPATINATH SARAN SINGH & ORS.	Coram: SHAH, J.C.	19/04/1968	Oudh Estates Act 1869, ss. 13(1) and 22(7)-Testator making will less than three months before death--Directing widow to adopt son--Such son whether a person who would have succeeded to the estate or interest therein within the meaning of	S who held a Talukdari Estate governed by the provisions of the Oudh Estates Act 1 of 1869 died without legitimate children. Eight days before his death on June 21, 1900 he executed a will under which (a) his widow J was directed to adopt	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
9	DINDYAL & ANR. Vs. RAJARAM	Coram: HEGDE, K.S.	17/04/1970	Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s. 14-Widow who has made gift of husband's property to daughter and thereafter reoccupied it as trespasser whether acquires rights of full ownership under s. 14(2)-"Possessed" in s. 14(1) meaning of. C.P. Tenancy Ac	The defendants were the grandsons of G's brother between whom and G there had been division of Hindu undivided family property. G died in 1920 and his widow L entered into possession of his property, namely, land held in tenancy in the for	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
10	SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH Vs. MST. PHOOL KUMARI & ORS.	Coram: SHELAT, J.M.	24/03/1971	Hindu Law--Family arrangement--Principles for deciding whether a document is family arrangement. Adverse possession--When established.	Raj Kumar, the common ancestor of the parties had four sons- Lalji Singh, Amar Singh, Ramji Singh and Raghunandan Singh. Amar Singh had three sons, namely, Sonadhari, Girwardhari and Nankhu father of present appellant. In 1898 Amar Singh purcha	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
11	KARBALAI BEGUM Vs. MOHD. SAYEED AND ANR.	Coram: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA	07/10/1980	U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, sections 9 & 49-Non-Participation by a co-sharer in rents and profits of land-Whether amounts to an ouster-Whether other co-sharer obtains title by adverse possession.	The appellant a widow and defendants nos. 1 and 2 were her husband's cousins. They were in joint possession of the plots in dispute, being co-bhumidars. The parties had a joint Khewat upto 1359 Fasli. The plaintiff filed a suit for joint	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
12	M.S.JAGADAMBAL Vs. SOUTHERN INDIAN EDUCATION TRUST & ORS	Coram: SHETTY, K.J. (J)	02/11/1987	Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Sections 96-100-Suit for possession of property-Possession continues with title holder until defendant acquires title by adverse possession- Court in appeal does not reverse finding of fact rested or proper	% The appellant's Husband purchased the lands in dispute under Ex. P2 wherein it was recited that the property was not fetching any income, that irrigation from the tank had failed, and that as the property was a pit which required Rs.2	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
13	RAM NATH AND OTHERS Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS	Coram: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)	10/11/1987	Suit for eviction from land under section 209 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act-Title to land by adverse possession.	The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Deputy Director of consolidation. The appellants filed appeal in this Court against the order of the High Court. The appeal came up for hearing on May 7, 1987, w	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
14	K.V. SWAMYNATHAN AND ORS. Vs. E.V. PADMANABHAN AND ORS.	Coram: SAIKIA, K.N. (J)	21/12/1990	Constitution of India, 1950--Article 136--Concurrent findings of trial Court and High Court--Interpretation of document of title and finding of existence of adverse pos- session--Whether questions of law. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908	The appellants-plaintiffs instituted a suit (O.S. No. 298/76) against the respondents-defendants, for title and exclusive ownership of the suit-properties in T.S. No. 666/2 and for recovery of possession and for damages for wrongful use an	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
15	PATEL NARANBHAI MARGHABHAI AND ORS. Vs. DECEASED DHULABHAI GALBABHAI AND ORS.	Coram: RAMASWAMY, K.	15/05/1992	Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947-Sections 32(2)(v), 38(3), 51-A read with sections 27, 3, Schedule Limitation Act-Suit for recovery of possession of property- Limitation-Determination-Nonprescription of period of limitation	The predecessor of the respondents mortgaged the suit- lands to the predecessor of the appellants, under the provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act,1947. The mortgagor/debtor committed default in the payment	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
1 2 3 4