<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1976 (4) TMI 192 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128123</link>
    <description>Long, open and continuous possession, followed by repudiation of the true owner&#039;s title and no proof of permissive occupation, can mature into ownership by prescription under the Portuguese Civil Code. The Court held that the defendants had acquired title to the land occupied by their house, so eviction was not available for that portion. It also held that Article 510 did not defeat the prescription plea because that provision applies only where possession is held in another&#039;s name and prescription is claimed without inversion of title; here, the defendants had never held the land in the plaintiffs&#039; name. Relief remained available only for the remaining portion of the property.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (4) TMI 192 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128123</link>
      <description>Long, open and continuous possession, followed by repudiation of the true owner&#039;s title and no proof of permissive occupation, can mature into ownership by prescription under the Portuguese Civil Code. The Court held that the defendants had acquired title to the land occupied by their house, so eviction was not available for that portion. It also held that Article 510 did not defeat the prescription plea because that provision applies only where possession is held in another&#039;s name and prescription is claimed without inversion of title; here, the defendants had never held the land in the plaintiffs&#039; name. Relief remained available only for the remaining portion of the property.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128123</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>