| Sl No. | Title | Coram | Date of Judgement | Subject | HeadNotes | |
| 16 | Bondar sIngh & Ors. Vs. Nihal Singh & Ors. | Coram: R.C. LAHOTI, ARUN KUMAR. | 04/03/2003 | Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Adverse possession-Suit for declaration-Claim of ownership of land in dispute by adverse possession-Possession of plaintiffs claimed to be on the basis of sale deed-Defendants denied possession of plaintiff and as | Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. If the findings of the subordinate courts on facts are contrary to evidence on record and are perverse, such finding can be set aside by the High Court in appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. High Court canno | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 17 | Thakur Prasad (Dead) Through L.Rs. Vs. Raj Karan (Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors. | Coram: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, ARIJIT PASAYAT | 04/03/2003 | U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951-Sections 2, 4, 14, 130, 133, 200(c), 209 and 210. Mortgage of suit land-By rent-free grantee of the land-Thereafter the land sold-Zamindari Abolition Act made applicable to the land by Notifica | Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1 Mortgagees are not entitled to claim any right either under Agra Tenancy Act or under Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951. As the mortgage money had been deposited by the mortgagors, the mortgagees had no right t | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 18 | Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) By LRs. Vs. Sri Jagadish Kalita & Ors. | Coram: ASHOK BHAN, S.B. SINHA. | 07/10/2003 | Adverse possession-Ouster by co-sharer-Plea of-Held, long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession- Possession of a property belonging to several co-sharers by one co-sharer, shall be deemed that he possesses the | Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to High Court, the Court HELD : 1.1. The proposition of law relating to ouster of a co-sharer vis-a- vis adverse possession had been overlooked by the High Court. Therefore, the matter should be | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 19 | BSES Limited Vs. M/s Tata Power Co. Ltd. & Ors. | Coram: ASHOK BHAN, S.B. SINHA. | 17/10/2003 | Adverse possession-Ouster by co-sharer-Plea of-Held, long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession- Possession of a property belonging to several co-sharers by one co-sharer, shall be deemed that he possesses the | Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to High Court, the Court HELD : 1.1. The proposition of law relating to ouster of a co-sharer vis-a- vis adverse possession had been overlooked by the High Court. Therefore, the matter should be | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 20 | Mercykutty Amma Vs. Kadavoor Sivadasan & Anr. | Coram: ASHOK BHAN, S.B. SINHA. | 06/11/2003 | Adverse possession-Ouster by co-sharer-Plea of-Held, long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession- Possession of a property belonging to several co-sharers by one co-sharer, shall be deemed that he possesses the | Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to High Court, the Court HELD : 1.1. The proposition of law relating to ouster of a co-sharer vis-a- vis adverse possession had been overlooked by the High Court. Therefore, the matter should be | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 21 | Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Ors. | Coram: R.C. LAHOTI, ASHOK BHAN. | 21/11/2003 | Limitation Act, 1963-Section 25; Article 65-Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950-Section 7-The Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Schedule Tribes) Regulations, 1956-Paras 2(j), 3, 3A, ID- Transfer of immovable property of | Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the trial court with certain directions, the Court HELD : 1.1. Tribal areas have their own problems. Tribals are historically weaker sections of the society. They need the protection of the laws as | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 22 | Smt. V. Rajeshwari Vs. T.C. Saravanabava | Coram: R.C. LAHOTI, ASHOK BHAN. | 16/12/2003 | Res judicata-Plea not taken by raising necessary pleadings at the stage of trial-Plea taken for first time in Second Appeal before High Court-High Court upholding plea and dismissing suit-Held, foundation for plea of res judicata must be laid in p | Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. The rule of res judicata does not strike at the root of the jurisdiction of the court trying the subsequent suit. It is a rule of estoppel by judgement based on the public policy that there should be a | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 23 | Ram Swaroop & Anr. Vs. Mahindru & Ors. | Coram: Y.K. SABHARWAL, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN. | 18/12/2003 | Hindu Law : Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, 1856 (as enforced in Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.1950 vide Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949-Section 2-Applicability of- Widow remarrying brother of deceased husband- According to the custom prevailing in | Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. It is settled law that a custom must be pleaded and proved. In the instant case, defendants specifically pleaded in the written statement custom prevalent in the community in the area that on the death | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 24 | B. Leelavathi Vs. Honnamma and Anr. | Coram: ASHOK BHAN, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI | 06/05/2005 | Pleadings-Suit for declaration and permanent injunction-Plaintiff claiming to be in possession of suit property on the basis of possession certificate, filing suit for declaration that mortgagee fraudulently sold the property and Bangalore Developmen | Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Plea of non-issuance of show cause notice by the BDA before executing the sale deed in favour of the appellant was neither pleaded nor raised before the trial court. It was raised for the first time before | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 25 | Vishwanatha Achari Vs. Kanakasabapathy | Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, H. K. SEMA | 26/07/2005 | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 100(4)-Second appeal-Dismissal of, on the ground that the finding recorded by First Appellate Court regarding adverse possession not challenged-Correctness of-Held: Question of law was formulated as required-Howe | Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: High Court erred in holding that there was no challenge by the appellant in the second appeal to the conclusions regarding adverse possession. As a matter of fact, a question of law in this regard was formu | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 26 | Saroop Singh Vs. Banto & Ors. | Coram: S.B. SINHA, R.V. RAVEENDRAN | 07/10/2005 | Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section 8-Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920-Entry 2(b) to the Schedule-Widow, on inheriting suit properties of her husband, gifted the same to appellant by a gift deed-Civil Court, in the suit filed by reversioners, hold | Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in the earlier suit has attained finality. The deed of gift is valid only so long as the widow is alive. The widow had only a life interest. On her death | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 27 | Saroop Singh Vs. Banto & Ors. | Coram: S.B. Sinha , R.V. Raveendran | 07/10/2005 | Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section 8-Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920-Entry 2(b) to the Schedule-Widow, on inheriting suit properties of her husband, gifted the same to appellant by a gift deed-Civil Court, in the suit filed by reversioners, hold | Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in the earlier suit has attained finality. The deed of gift is valid only so long as the widow is alive. The widow had only a life interest. On her death | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 28 | Rukmani Ammal and Anr. Vs. Jagdeesa Gounder | Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER | 09/11/2005 | Limitation Act, 1963-Article 63-Possession of mortgage property by mortgagee-When becomes adverse against mortgagor-Held: On sale of mortgage property in favour of mortgagee, his/her status as mortgagee comes to an end and upon purchase, claims prope | Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, it is correct to say that once the property was sold to defendant no. 1 who was mortgagee in possession, she could not be continued as mortgagee inasmuch as after the sale, she was cla | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 29 | Prabhakaran & Ors. Vs. M. Azhagiri Pillai (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. | Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, R. V. RAVEENDRAN | 20/03/2006 | Limitation Act 1963-Sections, 18, 19, 27 and Article 61(a)-Acknowledgement-Fresh Period of Limitation-Usufructuary Mortgage-Redemption of-Mortgage of suit property under a usufructuary mortgage deed dt. 7.9.1935-Mortgagee assigning the mortgage in fa | Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of High Court, the Court HELD: 1. Article 61(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that the period of limitation for a suit by a mortgagor to redeem or recover possession of the immovable proper | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 30 | N. Srinivasa Rao Vs. Spl. Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, & O | Coram: B.P. SINGH, ALTAMAS KABIR | 23/03/2006 | Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950-Sections 30, 38E, 47 and 49-A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-Sections 2(d) and 2(e)-Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 43-Protected tenant purchased agricultural l | Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The attempts by the heirs of UR to dispossess the transferees could at best be said to be an attempt to gain possession of the lands without actually obtaining possession thereof. This would not const | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 1 2 3 4 5 |
Comments
Post a Comment