JUDGMENTS CITED AT THE BAR

S.No

1.

Title
Manmohan Service
Station v. Mohd.
Haroon Japanwala

Citation
54 (1994) DLT
552

Ratio
S.64 Limitation Act Whether a person who claims
ownership to an immovable property by adverse possession
can maintain a suit, or he is bereft of any remedy under the
law?
Ans: The suit is maintainable. Whenever a law creates a
right, it also provides a machinery for the enforcement of
the said right. It is inconceivable to think of a right in the
absence of a remedy in case of its infringement. In fact, the
right and the machinery for its enforcement twin sisters.
They go hand in hand and we cannot visualize the one in
the absence of the other. A person who has been in
possession over an immovable property for more than
twelve years continuously, openly, without any interruption
and interference from the owner, though the factum of
adverse possession is in his knowledge, and who denies the
title of the owner, would be deemed to have become owner
by adverse possession under the law. Thus, the law confers
ownership on such a person, Hence, ergo it follows as a
corollary that there must be some machinery for the
enforcement of the said right which has accrued to a

person by adverse possession.

Assuming arguendo that the plea of adverse possession can
be raised by way of defence only, even then there might be
circumstances in which a plaintiff has to bring forward a
suit by way of defence to his right to claim possession over
a particular property when his right to possession is
invaded by the owner or by a stranger. In that eventuality,
the person who so institutes the suit would be a plaintiff,
but the suit would be by way of defence in order to
safeguard his rights and interests in the said property.
(Relied: Karthiyayani Amma v. Govindan, AIR 1980
Kerala 224)
S.116 Evidence Act The plaintiff herein is not denying the
title of the defendants in respect of those portions which
forms part of the tenanted accommodation and which have
been shown in red colour in the plan annexed with the
plaint. However, he is asserting his ownership by adverse
possession over portions other than the portions which
form a part of his tenanted accommodation and which have
been shown in blue colour in the plan annexed with the
plaint. Hence, the provisions of S.116 of the Evidence Act
are of no avail to the defendants.
There is yet another aspect of the matter. Even if the

contention of the learned Counsel for the defendants is

accepted that the plaintiff has encroached upon certain
portions belonging to the defendants and which do no form
part of his tenanted accommodation, even in that
eventuality he cannot be evicted otherwise than in due
course of law because in that case they would be deemed
to have become a part of his tenanted accommodation.
(Relied: Subodh Gopal Bose v. Oil Storage &
Distributing Co. India Ltd., AIR 1957 Calcutta 67;
When a tenant encroaches on land outside his tenancy but
belonging to his landlord he cannot acquire absolute title
thereto by the adverse possession but obtains only the
right of tenancy under his landlord)
It is well settled principle of law that the parties are free to
take alternative even contradictory pleas unless there is a
statutory bar to do so.

2. Bhargava and Co. v.

Shayam Sunder
Seth by LRs.

AIR 1995 SC
377 =
1994 (5) SCC

Report of the Local Commissioner can be made use of to

find out as to whether the plaintiff was found in possession
on the date the Court ordered the execution of the
Commission. Relied: AIR 1959 AP 64;
S.65 Limitation Act A person whose possession was
permissive cannot claim title on the basis of adverse
possession unless they show specific over act or assertion

471

3.

Karnataka Board of
Wakf v.
Government of
India

2004 (10) SCC

779

on their part that they disclaimed the title of true owner.

They may allege and prove that as to when and under what
circumstances their possession became adverse.
S.40 Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act Auction Purchasers of evacuee property. Property
was purchased in 1964 but full price paid in 1980 and sale
certificate issued to auction purchasers. Title passes on to
auction purchasers in 1980. Auction purchasers cannot
claim title of property till full price is paid. Suit for
dispossession of occupant of property filed in 1984. Suit is
not barred by limitation.
S.27 Limitation Act In the eyes of law, an owner would be
deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there
is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even
for a long time wont affect his title. But the position will be
altered when another person takes possession of the
property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is
a hostile possession by clear asserting hostile title in denial
of the title of true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a
party claiming adverse possession must prove that his
possession is peaceful, open and continuous. The
possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and
in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the
true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the

true owner and must be actual, visible, exclusive and

continued over the statutory period. Physical fact of
exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as
owner in exclusive to the actual owner are the most
important factors that are to be account in cases of this
nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of
law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person
who claims adverse possession should know (a) on what
date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of
his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was
known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has
continued, and (e) his possession was open and
undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no
equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights
of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all
facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. (Dr.
Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumar Sharma, 1996 (8)
SCC 128)
Plaintiff, filing a suit should be very clear about the origin
of title over the property. He must specifically plead it.
Whenever the plea of adverse possession is projected,
inherent in the plea is that someone else was owner of the
property. The pleas on title and adverse possession are
mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to

operate until the former is renounced.

S.26 Wakf Act Declaration as to wakf property Property
acquired under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act,
1904 and Ancient Monument by notification published and
entered in the Register of Ancient Protected Monuments in
charge of Executive Engineer, later on came to be under
the management of Department of Archeological Survey,
Govt. of India under the new Act of 1958, presumed to be
vested and possessed by Govt. of India. Declaration either
under the Old Wakf Act, S.4 or 26 of Wakf Act can be
issued unless only qua existing wakf property. The
authorities under the Wakf Acts have no power and
jurisdiction to declare any other properties under the Act,
that is also without following the prescribed procedure, as
Wakf Property. If any such declaration is there, that would
be null and void and of no consequence in law nor binding
on only one.

4. P. T. Munichikkanna

AIR 2007 SC

O.41 R.27 CPC Additional Evidence in Appeal Appellant

shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence unless
it is shown that in spite of due diligence he could not
produce the same during trial and the same is required to
enable the court to pronounce proper judgment.
Art.64, Art.65 Limitation Act - Adverse possession - Proof -

Reddy v. Revamma

1753 = 2007 (6) Intention to dispossess - Is essential to prove adverse

SCC 59
possession - Possession of adverse possessor must be
hostile enough to give rise to reasonable notice and
opportunity to paper owner.
Intention is a mental element which is proved and
disproved through positive acts. Existence of some events
can go a long way to weaken the presumption of intention
to dispossess which might have painstakingly grown out of
long possession which otherwise would have sufficied in a
standard adverse possession case. The fact of possession is
important in more than one ways : firstly, due compliance
on this count attracts limitation Act and it also assists the
Court to unearth as the intention to dispossess.
Importantly, intention to possess can not be substituted for
intention to dispossess which is essential to prove adverse
possession. The factum of possession in the instant case
only goes on to objectively indicate intention to possess the
land. As also has been noted by the High Court, if the
appellant has purchased the land without the knowledge of
earlier sale, then in that case the intention element is not
of the variety and degree which is required for adverse
possession to materialize.
Thus, there must be intention to dispossess. And it needs

to be open and hostile enough to bring the same to the

knowledge and plaintiff has an opportunity to object. After
all adverse possession right is not a substantive right but a
result of the waiving (wilful) or omission (negligent or
otherwise) of right to defend or care for the integrity of
property on the part of the paper owner of the land.
Adverse possession statutes, like other statutes of
limitation, rest on a public policy that do not promote
litigation and aims at the repose of conditions that the
parties have suffered to remain unquestioned long enough
to indicate their acquiescence.
It is important to appreciate the question of intention as it
would have appeared to the paper-owner. The issue is that
intention of the adverse user gets communicated to the
paper-owner of the property. This is where the law gives
importance to hostility and openness as pertinent qualities
of manner of possession. It follows that the possession of
the adverse possessor must be hostile enough to give rise
to a reasonable notice and opportunity to the paper-owner.
Adverse possession is a right which comes into play not
just because someone loses his right to reclaim the
property out of continuous and wilful neglect but also on
account of possessor's positive intent to dispossess.

Therefore, it is important to take into account before

stripping somebody of his lawful title, whether there is an
adverse possessor worthy and exhibiting more urgent and
genuine desire to dispossess and step into the shoes of the
paper-owner of the property.

5.

State of WB v.
Dalhousie Institute
Society

6.

Saroop Singh v.
Banto

AIR 1970 SC
1778

AIR 2005 SC
4407
= 2005 (8) SCC
330

S.2(d) Protection of Human Rights Commission Act - Right

of property - Is not only a constitutional or statutory right
but also a human right.
Art.64, Art.65 Limitation Act - Title by adverse possessionGrant of land in favour of Institute not in manner required
by law Held: the persons in such possession acquires title
by adverse possession and is entitled to compensation
money for acquisition of such land.
Art.64, Art.65 Limitation Act Adverse possession is a
question of facts and law: A person who claims adverse
possession should show:
(a)
On what date he came into possession
(b)
What was the nature of his possession
(c)
Whether the factum of possession was known to
the other party
(d)
How long his possession has continued, and
(e)
His possession was open and undisturbed.
Adverse possession onus to prove A person pleading

7.

Annakili v. A.
Vedanayagam

AIR 2008 SC
346

adverse possession has no equities in his favour since he is

trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to
clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish
his adverse possession.
Adverse possession starting point of limitation does not
commence from the date when the right of ownership
arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date
defendants possession becomes adverse.
Art. 64, Art. 65 Limitation Act Adverse possession Suit
by plaintiffs seeking possession of land Respondent
claiming ownership by way of adverse possession. It is for
defendant to show that she and her predecessor had been
in possession of the suit property on the basis of the hostile
title and as a result whereof the title of the plaintiff
respondent extinguished.
Adverse possession proof (1) Mere long possession for a
period of more than 12 years without anything more does
not ripen into title.
(2) Claim by adverse possession has two elements: (i) the
possession of the defendant should become adverse to the
plaintiff; and (ii) the defendant must continue to remain in
possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. Animus
possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of
adverse possession.

8.

Kulwant Singh v.
Khairati Lal

2009 (2) RCR

(Civil) 254

9.

Hemaji Waghaji Jat

v. Bhikhabhai
Khengarbhai
Harijan

AIR 2009 SC
103

(3) No only animus possidendi must be shown to exist, but

the same must be shown to exist at the commencement of
the possession. He must continue in said capacity for the
period prescribed under the Limitation Act.
S.118 TPA Exchange of Immovable Property There
cannot be any valid exchange of immovable property
without pleading and proving the fact that exchange had
taken place between the parties.
Article 65 Limitation Act Possession, howsoever long it
may be, does not prove adverse. The party who claims
adverse possession has to plead and prove the ingredients
of adverse possession. For adverse possession, the plaintiff
has to prove the ouster of other. The plaintiff has also to
prove the fact that the possession of the plaintiff was in a
hostile manner, adverse to the right of the other party,
continuous, uninterrupted and to the knowledge of the
adverse party for a period of more than 12 years and only
then that party can succeed.
The right to possess property is not only constitutional
right, but a human right also. The present law of adverse
possession which ousts the owner on basis of inaction
within limitation is irrational, illogical as extremely harsh
for true owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who
had illegally taken possession of property. Union
Government asked to give fresh look to make suitable

changes.
S.27, Article 65 Limitation Act A party claiming adverse
possession must prove that his possession is nec vi, nec
clam, nec precario, that is, peaceful, open and continuous.
The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity
and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to
the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of
the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile
and continued over the statutory period.
(2) Possession of one co-heir is considered, in law, as
possession of all the co-heirs. When one co-heir is found to
be in possession of the properties it is presumed to be one
the basis of joint title. As between co-heirs there must be
evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled with
exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the
knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster. Relied:
AIR 1957 SC 314
(3) There must be evidence when the possession became
adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the
party affected can be found.
(4) Having come into possession under colour of title from
original grantee, if the appellant intends to plead adverse

possession as against the State, he must disclaim his title

and plead his hostile claim to the knowledge of the State
and that the State had not taken any action thereon within
the prescribed period. Thereby, the appellants possession
would become adverse.
(5) Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long
time wont affect his title but the position will be altered
when another person takes possession of the property and
asserts a right over it.
(6) Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law
but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who
claims adverse possession should show : (a) on what date
he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his
possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was
known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has
continued, and (e) his possession was open and
undisturbed.
(7) In terms of Article 65, the starting point of limitation
does not commence from the date when the right of
ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the
date the defendants possession becomes adverse.

10.

T. Anjanappa v.
Somalingappa

JT 2006 (8) 382

=
2006 AIR SCW
4368

It is the basic principle of law of adverse possession that

(a) it is the temporary and abnormal separation of the
property from the title of it when a man holds property
innocently against all the world but wrongfully against the
true owner; (b) it is possession inconsistent with the title of
the true owner.
It is well recognized proposition in law that mere
possession however long does not necessarily means that it
is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really
means the hostile possession which is expressly or
impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to
constitute adverse possession the possession proved must
be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to
show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical
requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession
are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title
must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession
must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being
known by the parties interested in the property, though it
is not necessary that there should be evidence of the
adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the
former's hostile action.
The High Court has erred in holding that even if the

defendants claim adverse possession, they do not have to

prove who is the true owner and even if they had believed
that the Government was the true owner and not the
plaintiffs, the same was inconsequential. Obviously, the
requirements of proving adverse possession have not been
established. If the defendants are not sure who is the true
owner the question of their being in hostile possession and
the question of denying title of the true owner do not arise.
Above being the position the High Court's judgment is
clearly unsustainable.
11.

Sadasivam v. K.
Doraiswamy

AIR 1996 SC
1724

Art. 64, 65 Adverse possession Exclusive possession by

a coparcener Not adverse to other coparceners unless
such possession is exercised by ousting others.
Hindu Law Alienation Father executing sale deed in
favour of near relative. Intention to repay debt or for legal
necessity not proved. No consideration passed. Parties
never intended to act upon it. Sale deed executed out of
dissatisfaction with son. It is a sham. In the instant case
the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the sale-deed of
property executed by him in favour of the defendant was a
sham document and not genuine. The suit was filed shortly
after execution of the sale-deed. He also filed another suit
restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's

possession. The plaintiff's deceased father had bequeathed

his half share in the property by executing a will in favour
of the defendant. The plaintiff was a signatory to the will.
The defendant filed a suit on basis of the will for
declaration of his half right in the property. The defendant
was plaintiff's sister's son and brother of plaintiff's wife. On
plaintiff's death his son was brought on record as his legal
representative.

12.

Basanti v.
Bijayakrushna

In the facts and circumstances of the case, held that :i) It did not appear that the plaintiff executed the sale-deed
for repayment of debts incurred by him or out of legal
necessity.
The sale-deed was in plaintiff's possession and the parties
never intended to act upon it. It was executed by the
plaintiff in favour of the defendant, a near relation, out of
plaintiff's dissatisfaction for his son and in fact no
consideration passed. Thus the sale-deed was a sham
document. Thus on plaintiff's death his son was entitled to
the property purported to be conveyed under the sham
sale-deed.
ii) The will was genuine and therefore the defendant was
entitled to half the share in the property.
AIR 1976 Orissa Art. 64, 65 Limitation Act - Suit on proprietary title to land
218
based on purchase - Proof - Documents showing that

occupier of suit lands has been exempted from

conservancy tax - Cannot be regarded as evidence of
purchase - Even an occupier of holding as licencee can pay
conservancy tax.
Permissive possession - Possession of licencee - Possession
by relatives after death of original licensee - Where there
was no allegation in the written statement that, on the date
of death of the original licensee, the possession of his
daughter, living with him, became adverse to the true
owner nor was there any averment that the original licence
did not survive.
Held that the implied intention must have been to allow
her to continue to possess the disputed land as licensee.
That means her possession even after the death of her
father (the original licensee) was permissive. If her
possession was permissive she cannot claim title to the
land on the ground of possession however long, unless she
shows that her possession was adverse to the plaintiffs
(owners) to their knowledge and with their acquiescence.
Even assuming that the licence terminated on the date of
death of the original licensee, and the daughter's
possession thereafter became unlawful, mere unlawful
possession does not mean adverse possession. A

13. Liaq Mohammad v.

DDA

1993 RLR 557

trespasser's possession is adverse to the true owner only

when the adverse possession of the trespasser's claim is
within the owner's knowledge. There must be on the part
of the trespasser an express or implied denial of title of the
true owner and an animus of exclusive ownership. In the
absence of such evidence the contention that the
daughter's adverse possession commenced after the death
of her father the original licensee, cannot be accepted.
S.46 Administration of Evacuee Property Civil suit in
respect of eviction or possession regarding evacuee
property is barred. If a civil court grants eviction decree
ignoring EP Act then decision is per incurium and not
binding.
Art. 142, 144 Limitation Act An owner having possesary
title can file suit for possession within 12 yeas. But
limitation for owner with title begins when opponent
claims adverse possession.
It is significant to mention that in the W/S, no plea had
been taken by any of the defendants that they or anyone of
them had become owner of the property in question by
adverse possession. The suit of the plaintiff was based on
title. There a number of judgments which hold that when a
suit is brought on the basis of title, the limitation does not

start running against the owner of the property till the

defendants in the suit set up any adverse possession viz a
viz the owner.
In Delhi Cloth & General Mills v. Ganga Charan, 1979
RLR 401; Ownership is the largest right or bundle of rights
relating to immovable property known to law. It includes
right of possession and usually two go together and inhere
in the same person and the only defence to a suit by an
owner for recovery of possession of immovable property is
adverse possession. There are there conceivable classes of
suits for possession of immovable property, (i) a suit based
on previous possession filed within six months of
dispossession; (ii) a suit based on previous possession filed
after six months from the date of dispossession; and (iii) a
suit based on title.
If a suit is brought within six months of dispossession, the
question of title becomes immaterial and the suit has to be
decreed if dispossession is even by the real owner within
six months. In case falling in the second category, if suit is
brought on the basis of previous possession, which is
commonly known as possessory title, the suit has to be
brought within 12 years of such dispossession and without
even proving the actual title of the property, the suit can be

decreed for possession against a third person if possessory

title is established and the suit for possession on the basis
title can be brought at any time and limitation does not
commence to run against the title holder till the adverse
possession is established in accordance with law against
the said title holder, so the suit on the basis of possessory
title would be governed by Article 142 of the old Act and
the suit based on title, only Article 144 would apply.
In Gaya Parsad Dikshit v. Dr. Nirmal Chander, AIR
1984 SC 930; U/Article 65, in a suit for possession by the
owner, the question of limitation does not arise till the plea
of adverse possession is established. Mere fact that on
termination of a licence, the licensee continues in
possession does not lead to any inference that the licensee
has set up any hostile title or adverse possession. On
passing of the decree of eviction against the tenant, which
became inexecutable on account of execution being not
filed within limitation, does not by itself lead to any
inference that the possession of the respondents in the suit
property had also become adverse to the appellant.
In the present case, no such plea at all has been raised by
the defendants, so question of defendants becoming owner
of the property by adverse possession did not arise. The

suit of the plaintiff could not be considered to be barred by

limitation as the suit is based on title.

ADVERSE POSSESSION; ESSENTIALS & CASE LAWS

Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true
owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is
nec vi, nec clam, nec precario, that is, peaceful, open and continuous.
A person who claims adverse possession should show:(a) on what date he came into possession,
(b) what was the nature of his possession,
(c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party,
(d) how long his possession has continued, and
(e) his possession was open and undisturbed.
The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is
adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible,
exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period.
Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual
owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse
possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.

A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of
the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse
possession.
In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no
intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time wont affect his title. But the position will
be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it.
Animus possidendi is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing the land
has the requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence.
Claim of title to the property and adverse possession are in terms contradictory.
# Case Laws on Adverse Possession
# 1. Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779
Whether the plaintiffs-respondents could claim adverse possession, we need to hardly mention the well known
and oft quoted maxim nec vi, nec clam, nec precario meaning thereby that adverse possession is proved only
when possession is peaceful, open, continuous and hostile.
# 2. Saroop Singh v. Banto, (2005) 8 SCC 330
Where the Apex Court emphasised the importance of animus possidendi and observed that in terms of Article
65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the
plaintiff but commences from the date the defendants possession becomes adverse. In the instant case, the

appellant categorically states that his possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical corollary is
that he did not have the requisite animus.
# 3. Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar, (1996) 1 SCC 639
Where the Apex Court observed that as regards the first plea, it is inconsistent with the second plea. Having
come into possession under the agreement, he must disclaim his right thereunder and plead and prove
assertion of his independent hostile adverse possession to the knowledge of the transferor or his successor in
title or interest and that the latter had acquiesced to his illegal possession during the entire period of 12
years, i.e., up to completing the period of his title by prescription nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. Since the
appellants claim is founded on Section 53-A, it goes without saying that he admits by implication that he
came into possession of the land lawfully under the agreement and continued to remain in possession till date
of the suit. Thereby the plea of adverse possession is not available to the appellant.
# 4. Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant (1995) 2 SCC 543
Where the Apex Court elaborated the significance of a claim to title viz.-a-viz. the claim to adverse possession
over the same property. The Court said that where possession can be referred to a lawful title, it will not be
considered to be adverse. The reason being that a person whose possession can be referred to a lawful title will
not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to anothers title. One who holds possession on
behalf of another, does not by mere denial of that others title make his possession adverse so as to give
himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. Therefore, a person who enters into possession having a lawful
title, cannot divest another of that title by pretending that he had no title at all.
# 5. P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, (2007) 6 SCC 59

Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the
property to the adverse possessor on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the
person in possession. It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie in it being open,
continuous and hostile.
# 6. Rama Shankar v. Om Prakash Likhdhari, (2013) 6 ADJ 119
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the principle of adverse possession and its consequences
wherever attracted has been recognized in the statute dealing with limitation. The first codified statute
dealing with limitation came to be enacted in 1840. The Act 14 of 1840 in fact was an enactment applicable in
England but it was extended to the territory of Indian continent which was under the reign of East India
Company, by an authority of Privy Council in the East India Company v. Oditchurn Paul, 1849 (Cases in the
Privy Council on Appeal from the East Indies) 43.
# Case Law Reference
S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254
Parsinni v. Sukhi, (1993) 4 SCC 375
D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka, (1997) 7 SCC 567
Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari Sharma, (1996) 8 SCC 128
Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak (2004) 3 SCC 376

Mohd. Mohd. Ali v. Jagadish Kalita, (2004) 1 SCC 371

Bangalore Development Authority Vs. N. Jayamma, (2016) 43 SCD 476