{"id":314508,"date":"2024-02-18T11:00:55","date_gmt":"2024-02-18T05:30:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=314508"},"modified":"2024-02-18T11:00:32","modified_gmt":"2024-02-18T05:30:32","slug":"decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Never Reported Judgment | Decree of possession of co-owned property can only be passed to the extent of the share of each collateral [(1952) 2 SCC 571]"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> The present case was an appeal by leave of the High Court of Pepsu at Patiala (‘High Court’) from the judgment and decree of the Division Bench of the said High Court dated 8-2-1950 and arises out of a suit instituted by Respondent 1 for possession of agricultural land measuring 87 bighas 14 biswas against appellant. The 3-Judges Bench of M.C. Mahajan*<\/span>, Chandrasekhara Aiyar, and N.H. Bhagwati, JJ., held that the decree of possession of property could only be made to the extent of the share of each collateral concerned and merely because one collateral had transferred their share by mortgage and gift, it did not mean that the other collaterals would be entitled to a decree of possession of such share as well.<\/p>\n

In the present case, two suits were instituted by the collaterals of Daya Singh, one for possession of certain agricultural land that was once held by Daya Singh, husband of Bhago, and the other for declaration that the adoption of Respondent 2, Inder Singh, by Bhago was null and void. Bhago adopted Inder Singh by a deed executed and registered on 23-12-1944. Before Inder Singh’s adoption, Bhago made a gift of 87 bighas 14 biswas to appellant. Thereafter, Inder Singh’s adoption was questioned by respondents, and the gift to appellant was also questioned, out of which this appeal arises.<\/p>\n

The common question in the two suits was whether appellant was the collateral of Daya Singh, husband of Bhago, within the seventh degree. The Trial Judge and the District Judge negatived appellant’s contention and dismissed the suits. On second appeal, the High Court found in appellant’s favour and gave them a decree in both the suits.<\/p>\n

The value of the land in the suit challenging the adoption was over Rs 20,000 and as the decree of the High Court reversed the decree of the court below, appellant had the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. The value of the subject matter of the suit in the gift case was below Rs 19,000 but as the present case was connected with the other case, a certificate was given for leave to appeal in this case.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court relied on Appeal No. 67 of 1952 and held that appellant was the collateral of Daya Singh in the seventh degree and was entitled to have the gift set aside, as not affecting his reversionary rights.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court noted the submission that the High Court was in error in giving a decree to appellant for the whole of the land in suit. It was said that the husband of Ind Kaur was a collateral of equal degree with appellant and she was entitled to possession of one-half of the land in suit and that appellant was entitled to the other half, and she not having joined in the suit as appellant, a decree for possession in respect of her share could not be passed in favour of appellant. The Supreme Court stated that this contention had force.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court further noted that it was averred that Respondent 2 was also a collateral of the like appellant but that she was transferring her own property by mortgage and gift and appellant was therefore entitled to obtain possession of her share as well. The Supreme Court stated that the ground to claim possession of Ind Kaur’s share was untenable. Ind Kaur submitted that she was a collateral like appellant, and she would look after her rights herself and that appellant had no right to file a suit regarding her half-share. The Supreme Court noted that when the High Court decreed appellant’s suit, it failed to notice that decree for possession in respect of Ind Kaur’s share could not be passed in appellant’s favour and thus, appellant’s suit for possession of the whole land in suit could not be decreed.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court therefore opined that the High Court’s judgment clearly needed correction to this extent. Thus, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the same extent and the decree for possession of the whole land in suit passed in favour of appellant was modified and appellant’s suit was decreed in respect to the half of the land in suit with proportionate costs throughout.<\/p>\n

[Mehar Singh v. Dhanna Singh, (1952) 2 SCC 571<\/a>, decided on 04-12-1952<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Note: Decree for possession of co-owned property<\/p>\n

Any property jointly owned, becomes a co-owned property and its owners become the co-owners. A co-owner is entitled to the basic right of joint enjoyment or possession of the property. The fact that a joint property has not been divided and is owned by several co-owners, does not curtail the right of a co-owner to give his share to an outsider. Often a co-owner sells his undivided share to a person who is not a member of the joint family (i.e. an outsider). However, mere transfer or sale of a co-owner’s share doesn’t entitle an outsider to take possession of the property.<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Appellant: Bakshi Tek Chand, Senior Advocate (A.N. Chona, Advocate, with him)<\/p>\n

For the Respondents: Rama Lal Chawla, Senior Advocate (K.N. Aggarwala, Advocate, with him)<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by: Justice M.C. Mahajan<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on possession of co-owned property.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":314512,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,58675],"tags":[65433,65432,65434,30456,58925,2634,3590,5363],"class_list":["post-314508","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-scc-never-reported-judgments-supreme-court","tag-co-owned","tag-collaterals","tag-high-court-of-pepsu-at-patiala","tag-land","tag-never-reported-judgment","tag-possession","tag-property","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment on possession of co-owned property | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court held that a decree of possession of co-owned property could only be passed to the extent of the share of each collateral.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment | Decree of possession of co-owned property can only be passed to the extent of the share of each collateral [(1952) 2 SCC 571]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court held that a decree of possession of co-owned property could only be passed to the extent of the share of each collateral.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-02-18T05:30:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/possession-of-co-owned-property.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment | Decree of possession of co-owned property can only be passed to the extent of the share of each collateral [(1952) 2 SCC 571]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment on possession of co-owned property | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/possession-of-co-owned-property.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-02-18T05:30:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court held that a decree of possession of co-owned property could only be passed to the extent of the share of each collateral.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/possession-of-co-owned-property.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/possession-of-co-owned-property.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"possession of co-owned property\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Never Reported Judgment | Decree of possession of co-owned property can only be passed to the extent of the share of each collateral [(1952) 2 SCC 571]\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\",\"name\":\"Simranjeet\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Simranjeet\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment on possession of co-owned property | SCC Blog","description":"Supreme Court held that a decree of possession of co-owned property could only be passed to the extent of the share of each collateral.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Never Reported Judgment | Decree of possession of co-owned property can only be passed to the extent of the share of each collateral [(1952) 2 SCC 571]","og_description":"Supreme Court held that a decree of possession of co-owned property could only be passed to the extent of the share of each collateral.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-02-18T05:30:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/possession-of-co-owned-property.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Simranjeet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Never Reported Judgment | Decree of possession of co-owned property can only be passed to the extent of the share of each collateral [(1952) 2 SCC 571]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Simranjeet","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/","name":"Supreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment on possession of co-owned property | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/possession-of-co-owned-property.webp","datePublished":"2024-02-18T05:30:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"description":"Supreme Court held that a decree of possession of co-owned property could only be passed to the extent of the share of each collateral.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/possession-of-co-owned-property.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/possession-of-co-owned-property.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"possession of co-owned property"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/18\/decree-of-possession-of-co-owned-property-can-only-be-passed-to-extent-of-share-of-each-collateral-sc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Never Reported Judgment | Decree of possession of co-owned property can only be passed to the extent of the share of each collateral [(1952) 2 SCC 571]"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd","name":"Simranjeet","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Simranjeet"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/possession-of-co-owned-property.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":277821,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/21\/supreme-court-suit-for-damages-concerning-the-balance-land-cannot-be-barred-by-section-34-of-sarfaesi-act-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":314508,"position":0},"title":"Supreme Court| Suit for damages concerning balance land cannot be barred by Section 34 of SARFAESI Act","author":"Editor","date":"November 21, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court, wherein it has set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court directing the Bank to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.58,10,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-319-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":244430,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/25\/consent-decree-recognising-pre-existing-rights-created-by-oral-family-settlement-does-not-require-registration-under-section-17-of-registration-act-1908-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":314508,"position":1},"title":"Consent decree recognising pre-existing rights created by oral family settlement does not require registration under section 17 of Registration Act, 1908: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 25, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan* and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has held that consent decree recognising pre-existing rights created by oral family settlement does not require registration under section 17 of\u00a0 Registration Act, 1908. Background In the present case, Shri Sher Singh, husband of Jagno had half share\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":284396,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/18\/section-51-tp-act-applies-on-transferee-who-makes-improvements-in-good-faith-on-a-property-believing-himself-to-be-its-absolute-owner-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-upd\/","url_meta":{"origin":314508,"position":2},"title":"Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act applies on transferee who makes improvements in good faith on a property, believing himself to be its absolute owner: Supreme Court","author":"Editor","date":"February 18, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order holding the respondent as the owner of the encroached land, as an encroacher cannot claim benefit of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-429.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":282292,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/defendants-cannot-be-dispossessed-unless-the-plaintiff-has-established-a-better-title-and-rights-over-the-property-supreme-court-reiterates-legal-research-legal\/","url_meta":{"origin":314508,"position":3},"title":"Defendants cannot be dispossessed unless the plaintiff has established a better title and rights over the property, Supreme Court reiterates","author":"Editor","date":"January 24, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court observed that the defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-50.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":310919,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/07\/claim-of-adverse-possession-cannot-be-sustained-on-basis-of-discontinuous-irregular-acts-sc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":314508,"position":4},"title":"Never Reported Judgment | Claim of adverse possession cannot be sustained on basis of discontinuous and irregular acts [(1952) 2 SCC 468]","author":"Simranjeet","date":"January 7, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on claim of adverse possession.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"claim of adverse possession","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/claim-of-adverse-possession.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/claim-of-adverse-possession.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/claim-of-adverse-possession.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/claim-of-adverse-possession.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":307852,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/26\/purchase-of-property-worth-thousands-for-low-price-showed-that-only-limited-interest-in-property-was-sold-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":314508,"position":5},"title":"Never Reported Judgment | When Supreme Court held that purchase of high-value property at low price showed that only limited interest in property was sold [(1952) 2 SCC 307]","author":"Simranjeet","date":"November 26, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on limited\/absolute interest in property.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"limitedabsolute interest in property","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/limitedabsolute-interest-in-property.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/limitedabsolute-interest-in-property.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/limitedabsolute-interest-in-property.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/limitedabsolute-interest-in-property.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314508","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=314508"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314508\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314512"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=314508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=314508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=314508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}