<?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>1999 (2) TMI 712 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299035</link>
    <description>Mere stray acts such as tethering cattle or dumping waste do not establish possession unless they show actual or potential control with animus possidendi. On the facts discussed, the commissioner&#039;s report and surrounding evidence were insufficient to displace the respondent&#039;s claim of possession, while the lease deed and earlier evidence supported that claim. Prior civil judgments concerning the same property were also treated as admissible and relevant under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, even though the appellant was not a party, because they related to an asserted or recognised right over the same property. Concurrent findings were therefore upheld and the decree in the respondent&#039;s favour sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2021 11:47:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 712 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299035</link>
      <description>Mere stray acts such as tethering cattle or dumping waste do not establish possession unless they show actual or potential control with animus possidendi. On the facts discussed, the commissioner&#039;s report and surrounding evidence were insufficient to displace the respondent&#039;s claim of possession, while the lease deed and earlier evidence supported that claim. Prior civil judgments concerning the same property were also treated as admissible and relevant under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, even though the appellant was not a party, because they related to an asserted or recognised right over the same property. Concurrent findings were therefore upheld and the decree in the respondent&#039;s favour sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299035</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>