Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for SALEM MUNICIPALITY VS P. KUMAR...
2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1239 : The plaintiff, P.C. Pachiappan, purchased land from S. Vijayaranga Mudaliar in 1951, but could not obtain possession because the entire Pallapatti village, including the disputed land, had vested in the State Government in 1949 under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The Government took over possession of the entire village in 1951, which included the disputed land. The plaintiff’s vendor had no right, title, or interest in the land after the expiry of temporary leases and could not transfer any valid right. Therefore, the plaintiff could not derive title or possession from his predecessor, and the land was held to be part of a tank, not ryoti land, making issuance of a ryotwari patta impossible. The court confirmed that possession was taken by the Government in 1951, and the plaintiff''''s claims to adverse possession and title were barred due to lack of evidence of continuous possession after the date of abolition.Checking relevance for Ravinder Kaur Grewal VS Manjit Kaur...
Checking relevance for State of Assam VS Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma...
Checking relevance for R. L. Jain (D) by Lrs. VS DDA...
2004 2 Supreme 376 : In a case where the land owner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the government merely takes possession of the land but the title continues to vest with the land owner. The land owner is therefore only entitled to rent or damages for use and occupation during the period the government retains possession, and not interest under Section 34 of the Act. The Collector may determine such rent or damages while fixing compensation, and appropriate interest at the prevailing bank rate may be awarded for delayed payment of that amount.Checking relevance for Sudam Ganpat Kutwal P. A. Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle VS Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar (dead) by LR Maruti Shankar Pachpute...
Checking relevance for Gyarsi Lal VS Gopal...
Checking relevance for Manoj Patel VS State of M. P. ...
2023 0 Supreme(MP) 75 : The legal documents establish that if a person purchases land but is unable to take possession, the validity of the possession taken by the State or competent authority must be examined. In particular, the documents state that possession taken without prior notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is not inherently invalid, but the failure to issue such notice may constitute a procedural irregularity. However, if the original landowner or their legal heirs did not raise a grievance within a reasonable time after dispossession, the right to challenge the possession may be deemed waived due to delay and laches. In this case, the original owner continuously contested the action and filed a writ petition in 1999, which was entertained by the court, granting liberty to approach the competent authority. This ongoing litigation prevents the claim from being dismissed on grounds of delay. Therefore, a purchaser who is unable to get possession may have a valid claim if the original owner''''s rights were not properly extinguished and the possession was taken in violation of prescribed procedures, especially if the original owner challenged the dispossession in a timely manner.Checking relevance for State of Rajasthan VS Aman Yadav...
Checking relevance for Pabitra Boro And Ors. S/o Lt. Gari Boro VS Sabitri Nath W/o Lt. Bhuban Nath...
Checking relevance for Abu Khan, S/o. Chand Khan VS Ishaq Khan, S/o. Kammu Khan...
2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 820 : Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a person who has been unlawfully dispossessed of immovable property may file a suit to recover possession, even if they do not have a superior title. However, the petitioner must prove prior lawful possession of the property. In this case, the court held that the petitioner failed to prove prior lawful possession, despite claiming to have been dispossessed after purchasing the land. The court emphasized that possession is the key issue under Section 6, and the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish prior lawful possession. The failure to produce independent witnesses or credible documents to substantiate possession led to the dismissal of the suit. Therefore, if a person purchases land but is unable to get possession, they may still have a remedy under Section 6, but only if they can prove they were in lawful possession prior to dispossession and that the dispossession was without consent and not in due course of law.Checking relevance for Ashan Devi VS Phulwasi Devi...
2003 8 Supreme 285 : Even though the objector was not in actual and physical possession of the vacant land, if the decree holder obtained possession of the land through delivery of possession (e.g., via Nazir), the objector will have to be treated as ''''dispossessed'''' within the meaning of Order 21 Rule 99 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1973. This is because the objector lost their right and control over the land to put it to their use, which constitutes dispossession under the law, especially when the property is vacant land that can only be possessed through ownership and control. The court held that such an interpretation fulfills the objective of the amended Code by allowing adjudication of title disputes between the decree holder and third parties in the executing court itself, avoiding independent litigation.
