Madhya Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest September 2018

(1).Amar Jeet Singh Bhalla Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.[M.P. HIGH COURT] 10-09-2018

2018 Legal Eagle 733

(2).Sita Devi Mange Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.[M.P. HIGH COURT] 07-09-2018

2018 Legal Eagle 731

(3).Vikram Nange Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others[M.P. HIGH COURT] 07-09-2018

2018 Legal Eagle 732

(4).Rahul Parmar Vs. State of M.P.[M.P. HIGH COURT] 06-09-2018

2018 Legal Eagle 730

(5).Yogesh Chauksey Vs. State of M.P. & others[M.P. HIGH COURT] 05-09-2018

2018 Legal Eagle 729

(6).Lallu Vs. State of MP & Another[M.P. HIGH COURT] 04-09-2018

2018 Legal Eagle 728

(7).Santosh and another Vs. State of M.P.[M.P. HIGH COURT] 01-09-2018

2018 Legal Eagle 726

(8).Mohd. Arif S/o Abdul Hafiz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[M.P. HIGH COURT] 01-09-2018

2018 Legal Eagle 727

Comments

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014]

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog