In a case before Supreme Court Vidya Devi vs Prem Prakash AIR 1995 SC 1789, By referring to following citations the point is clarified “In Karbali Begum Vs. Mohd Sayeed (AIR 1981 SC 77), it was held that a co-sharer in possession of the property would be a constructive trustee on behalf of other co-sharer who is not in possession and the right of such co-sharer would be deemed to be protected by the trustee co-sharer. Certain observations of the Privy Council in Coera Vs. Appuhamy (AIR 1914 PC 243, 245-246) may be quoted below:- "Entering into possession and having a lawful title to enter, he could not divest himself of that title by pretending that he had no title as all. His title must have ensured for the benefit of his co-proprietors. The principle recognised by Wood, V.C. in Thomas Vs. Thomas (1856) 25 LJ Ch 159 (161): 110 RR 107 holds good: `Possession is never considered adverse if it can be referred to a lawful title'..... His possession was, in law, the possession of his co-owners. It was not possible for him to put an end to that possession by any secret intention in his mind. Nothing short of ouster or something equivalent to ouster could bring about that result."
TOPICS AVAILABLE IN THIS BLOG
- ► 2009 (32)
- ► 2010 (26)
- IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS IN CIVIL CASES AS EXPLAIN...
- CASE AGAINST PUBLIC ROAD ENCROACHMENT NO LIMITATIO...
- Possession of one co-sharer is treated as possessi...
- Gift of un-divided share by co-parcener
- RIGHT OF MAINTENANCE OF HINDU WIFE
- NOTIONAL PARTITION UNDER HINDU LAW
- WHEN SUCESSION HAS BEEN ALREADY OPENED IN STATE AM...
- STATUS OF GRANDSON IN CODIFIED HINDU LAW
- EXECUTION OF A WILL IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVED IN TE...
- HINDU JOINT FAMILY AND BUSINESS UNDER HINDU FAMILY...
- ▼ February (10)
- ► 2012 (59)