Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The present being a case where the grievance sought to be raised by the petitioner is regarding alleged obstruction by his neighbour in the construction of a gate on the petitioner’s property, the same in our view would not come within the purview of provisions of the Senior Citizens Act 2007.”
“Short-circuiting of procedure to reach hasty outcomes is an undesirable propensity of an overburdened judiciary. Such impulses rendering procedural safeguards and substantive rights subvert certainty and consistency in law and need to be discouraged”.
Supreme Court pointed out that the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person.
“Merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented”.
“A person claiming adverse possession should show, as to on what date he got the possession; the nature of his possession; whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; how long his possession has continued; and that his possession was open and undisturbed.”
Since the daughter had not signed the alleged settlement deed, the Supreme Court clarified that “In a suit for partition of joint property, a decree by consent amongst some of the parties cannot be maintained”.
In Ram Rattan v. State of U.P., (1977) 1 SCC 188, the 3-judges Bench comprising S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, P.N. Bhagwati, and V.R. Krishnaiyer, JJ., delved into the scope of a trespasser to exercise the right of private defence of property and person.