ANIL R.DAVE, DIPAK MISRA
Tribhuvanshankar – Appellant
Versus
Amrutlal – Respondent
Judgment :-
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, in Second Appeal No. 33 of 1995 passed on 8.2.2008.
3. The appellant-plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 259A/86 in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Mhow, District Indore, for eviction of the respondent-defendant from the suit-premises and for mesne profits. The case of the appellant-plaintiff was that he had purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 1.4.1976 on payment of sale consideration of Rs.4500/- to the vendor, one Kishanlal. The respondent-defendant was in possession of the said suit property as a tenant under the earlier owner Kishorilal on payment of rent of Rs.15/- per month. It was averred in the plaint that it was an oral tenancy and after acquiring the title the appellant informed the respondent about the sale by the earlier owner. Despite assurance given by the respondent to pay the rent to him, it was not honoured which compelled the appellant to send a notice on 14.12.1977 and, eventually, he terminated the tenancy with effect from 31.1.1978. The respondent, as pleaded, had replied to the
Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul
Amulya Ratan Mukherjee v. Kali Pada Tah
Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad
Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera
Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad
Dr. Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal
LIC v. India Automobiles & Co.
Secy. of State for India In Council v. Debendra Lal Khan
S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina AIR 1964 SC 1254 - Relied upon [Para 26]
Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India
P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma
Mst. Sultan Jehan Begum v. Gul Mohd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.