<?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>2003 (12) TMI 623 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168150</link>
    <description>A plea of res judicata must be specifically pleaded, supported by the earlier record, and proved at trial; it cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time in appeal. Because the prior litigation concerned only a limited portion of the property and no proper foundation was laid, the present suit was not barred. A plea of adverse possession likewise requires clear pleading and proof of open, continuous, hostile possession from the point it became adverse; the defendant&#039;s inconsistent stand and lack of evidence defeated that defence. The plaintiff was entitled to declaration, recovery of possession of the remaining property, and enquiry into mesne profits, excluding the 240 square feet already covered by the earlier decree.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2015 12:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 623 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168150</link>
      <description>A plea of res judicata must be specifically pleaded, supported by the earlier record, and proved at trial; it cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time in appeal. Because the prior litigation concerned only a limited portion of the property and no proper foundation was laid, the present suit was not barred. A plea of adverse possession likewise requires clear pleading and proof of open, continuous, hostile possession from the point it became adverse; the defendant&#039;s inconsistent stand and lack of evidence defeated that defence. The plaintiff was entitled to declaration, recovery of possession of the remaining property, and enquiry into mesne profits, excluding the 240 square feet already covered by the earlier decree.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168150</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>