<?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>2011 (3) TMI 1817 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297466</link>
    <description>Order XII Rule 6 CPC permits judgment on clear, unambiguous and even constructive admissions in the pleadings and surrounding circumstances, so a decree can be passed without trial where the record contains sufficient admissions. Applying that principle, the Delhi High Court upheld the decree because the occupant&#039;s own pleadings showed permissive use of the temple premises through his father, while inconsistent stands on inheritance, gift and adverse possession undermined the defence. The claim of title by gift failed for want of any registered instrument, and adverse possession was rejected because permissive possession cannot become adverse without a clear hostile assertion for the requisite period. The appellate challenge failed and mesne profits remained for determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2021 16:36:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654954" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1817 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297466</link>
      <description>Order XII Rule 6 CPC permits judgment on clear, unambiguous and even constructive admissions in the pleadings and surrounding circumstances, so a decree can be passed without trial where the record contains sufficient admissions. Applying that principle, the Delhi High Court upheld the decree because the occupant&#039;s own pleadings showed permissive use of the temple premises through his father, while inconsistent stands on inheritance, gift and adverse possession undermined the defence. The claim of title by gift failed for want of any registered instrument, and adverse possession was rejected because permissive possession cannot become adverse without a clear hostile assertion for the requisite period. The appellate challenge failed and mesne profits remained for determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>