<?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>1968 (2) TMI 117 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168445</link>
    <description>Prior possession, even without title, remains an enforceable basis for recovery of possession against a later trespasser within the ordinary limitation period, notwithstanding expiry of the special summary remedy under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and the corresponding Travancore provision. A defendant in wrongful possession cannot defeat such a claim by pleading title in an unrelated third party; possession prevails unless better title or lawful authority is shown. The Court also recognised that a subsequent grant obtained during the suit could be taken into account by amendment of the written statement where it served complete justice and avoided multiplicity of proceedings, while leaving the effect on mesne profits and improvements to be reconsidered on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2015 18:21:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=377799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (2) TMI 117 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168445</link>
      <description>Prior possession, even without title, remains an enforceable basis for recovery of possession against a later trespasser within the ordinary limitation period, notwithstanding expiry of the special summary remedy under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and the corresponding Travancore provision. A defendant in wrongful possession cannot defeat such a claim by pleading title in an unrelated third party; possession prevails unless better title or lawful authority is shown. The Court also recognised that a subsequent grant obtained during the suit could be taken into account by amendment of the written statement where it served complete justice and avoided multiplicity of proceedings, while leaving the effect on mesne profits and improvements to be reconsidered on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>