AI Overview...
-
Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil - Notable case involving partition and property rights, primarily decided in the Supreme Court of India in 2003 (SCC 552). The case reaffirmed the recognition and upholdment of rights to partition, emphasizing legal principles related to adverse possession, limitation, and property division Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil VS Bapu Koyappa Patil (Dead) Through Lrs. - Supreme Court, APPASANI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA murthy VS CHEKKA VEERA RAJA RAO - Andhra Pradesh, Gulab Singh VS Balbir Singh - Himachal Pradesh.
-
Legal Principles - The case clarified that the doctrine of adverse possession and limitation has been addressed and rejected in certain contexts by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, notably in Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil's case, establishing that such doctrines do not bar partition claims when legal rights are recognized Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil VS Bapu Koyappa Patil (Dead) Through Lrs. - Supreme Court.
-
Judicial Precedents - The decision relies on earlier rulings, including Kalgonda Babgonda Patil vs. Balgonda Kalgonda Patil and other judgments, to support the recognition of rights and the validity of partition suits Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil VS Bapu Koyappa Patil (Dead) Through Lrs. - Supreme Court, Porbuko Uma Mandrekar VS Wencesslay Alex Dsilva - Bombay.
-
Case Significance - The case is frequently cited in subsequent judgments concerning property disputes, partition rights, and legal interpretations of adverse possession, emphasizing the importance of proper legal procedures and the recognition of genuine property rights APPASANI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA murthy VS CHEKKA VEERA RAJA RAO - Andhra Pradesh, Om Prakash VS Amit Choudhary - Delhi.
-
Main Insights - The case underscores that rights to property and partition are protected under Indian law, and adverse possession cannot be used as a shield against genuine claims for partition, especially when such claims are supported by legal evidence and proper procedures Manikrao VS Gangabai - Bombay.
-
Conclusion - Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil’s case remains a significant legal reference affirming the rights of parties in partition suits, clarifying the limitations of adverse possession defenses, and reinforcing adherence to established legal principles in property disputes Bajranglal Shivchandrai Ruia VS Shashikant N. Ruias - Supreme Court, Gulab Singh VS Balbir Singh - Himachal Pradesh.
References: - Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil VS Bapu Koyappa Patil (Dead) Through Lrs. - Supreme Court - APPASANI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA murthy VS CHEKKA VEERA RAJA RAO - Andhra Pradesh - Porbuko Uma Mandrekar VS Wencesslay Alex Dsilva - Bombay - K. Sriramamurthy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh - Sattarsha Dibarsha VS Ajizabi Dilbarsha - Bombay - Gulab Singh VS Balbir Singh - Himachal Pradesh - Om Prakash VS Amit Choudhary - Delhi - Bajranglal Shivchandrai Ruia VS Shashikant N. Ruias - Supreme Court
Search Results for "Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil"
2003 2 Supreme 388 • India - Supreme Court
D.M.DHARMADHIKARI, BRIJESH KUMAR
based on adverse possession and limitation has been repelled by three Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil ... Learned counsel appearing for the defendants, assails the decree of partition granted to the plaintiff/respondent but does not dispute the legal position settled by the two Judges Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kalgonda Babgonda Patil vs. Balgonda Kalgonda Patil etc. etc. ... [AIR 1989 SC 1042] and three Judges Bench decision of this Court in the case of Annasaheb Bapusaheb Pa....
2004 0 Supreme(Bom) 1489 • India - Bombay
N.A.BRITTO
1971 (3) SCR 301 : 1971 (1) SCC 265 and which has been relied upon in the case of Chandramohan ... Bapu Koyappa Patil (Dead) Through L.Rs and others In the case at hand with the aid of provisions of Order 41, Rule 4 read with Order
2004 0 Supreme(AP) 1118 • India - Andhra Pradesh
B.PRAKASH RAO, B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
Gunnala Raghunandan Rao and another decision reported in chandramohan ramchandra patil and others v. Bapu koyappa patil and others sought to support the findings of the power appellate court in awarding the interest. ... ... ( 16 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to place reliance on Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil and others v. ... Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel apearing for the appellants and Sri K. Subramanyam, the learne....
2010 0 Supreme(P&H) 2302 • India - Punjab and Haryana
L.N.MITTAL
Chandigarh versus Janak Raj, 1994(3) PLR 160; Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil & Ors versus Bapu Koyappa Patil (dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors., 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 75 and Savitri Devi Daga & Ors. Versus Puranmall Goenka, 2006(2) ICC 127. ... 13.
2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 487 • India - Bombay
VIBHA KANKANWADI
Since all the substantial questions of law have been dealt with, the ratio laid down in, Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil Versus Bapu Koyappa Patil (Dead) Through Lrs., (2003) 3 SCC 552, may not be applicable here. ... Kshirsagar for respondent No.1 submitted that, when the substantial question of law was not framed by the High Court, the case was remanded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in, Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil Versus Bapu Koyappa Patil (Dead) Throug....
2021 0 Supreme(AP) 258 • India - Andhra Pradesh
M.VENKATA RAMANA
Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil and others v. Bapu Koyappa Patil (dead) through LRs. and others, (2003) 3 SCC 552, is also relied on for the appellant. In Paras 14 and 15 in this ruling, it is stated as under: "14.
2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 911 • India - Bombay
A.S.CHANDURKAR
Palaniappa Gounder [AIR 1998 SC 3118], and [5] Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil & others Vs. Bapu Koyappa Patil (dead) through L.Rs. and others [AIR 2003 SC 1754]. ... 9.
2018 0 Supreme(HP) 2204 • India - Himachal Pradesh
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
In Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil and others versus Bapu Koyappa Patil (dead) through LRS and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 552, a suit for partition was filed in which the right of partition was recognised and upheld by the Court.
2019 0 Supreme(Del) 1612 • India - Delhi
PRATEEK JALAN
(See Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil and Ors. vs. Bapu Koyappa Patil (Dead) Through LRs and Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 552, [Paragraph 13]; Loke Nath Saha and Ors. vs. Radha Gobinda Shaha and Ors. AIR 1926 Cal 184, [Paragraph 2]; Mahender Kr. Lamba vs. ... This Court, in Dattatray Namdeo Patil v. ... Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Dattatray Namdeo Patil vs. Ram Namdeo Patil (2010) 3 Mah LJ 801, and Haran Bidi Suppliers vs. V....
2004 5 Supreme 711 • India - Supreme Court
B.N.SRIKRISHNA, S.RAJENDRA BABU
In Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil v. Bapu Koyappa Patil (dead) through LRs. And others, (2003) 3 SCC 552, a suit for partition was filed in which the right of partition was recognised and upheld by the Court. ... Ramachandra Naidu and another, (1994) 6 SCC 339. ... 62. Reliance by the respondents on Nirmala Bala Ghose, (1965) 3 SCR 550 is also of little use.
Filter by Legal Phrase
