Ramsingh Vs. Ramchandra and anr.

.....be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4).....s.p. khare, j.1. this is defendant's second appeal under section 100, cpc. the following substantial question of law was formulated by order dated 24-6-85 at the time of admission of this appeal:--'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the court below erred in not holding that the appellant had acquired the bhumiswami rights by adverse possession ?'2. it is not in dispute that jagannath was bhumiswami of khasra no. 782/2 area 0.020 hectares of village jirapur. the plaintiffs are his heirs. therefore, they became bhumiswamis of this land after death of jagannath.3. the plaintiff's case was that defendant ram singh dispossessed them in the year 1977. on the other hand the case of the defendant was that he is in possession of this land from the year 1964-65 and he has acquired title to this land by adverse possession. the trial court uphold the plea of adverse possession set up by the defendant. but the appellate court reversed it on the ground that the possession of the defendant on the basis of his own evidence was permissive and not adverse. the appellate court has relied upon the statement of the defendant in his evidence to this effect that jagannath had given him the land in dispute for cultivation. the appellate court held that jagannath had granted license of this land to the defendant and after the death of jagannath also the possession of the defendant continued as a licensee. it has been further found that for the first time the defendant exhibited hostile animus in the year 1978-79 when he submitted an application before the revenue court that he was occupancy tenant and has become bhumiswami of this land. his application under section 190 of m.p. land revenue code, 1959 was rejected by the revenue court.4. though the possession of the defendant was for more than 12 years it has been held by the first appellate court which is a final court of facts that the possession of the defendant was permissive. this finding is based on the.....