SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Del) 757

High Court Of Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog
DEEP CHAND - Appellant
Versus
KULANAND LAKHERA - Respondents
C. R. P 698 Of 2003
Decided On : 04/17/2007

Advocates Appeared:
D.K.Mishra, DEV BHARDWAJ, J.C.Mahindra, Madan Lal Sharma, MAHJABEEN SHAMIM, RAJENDER DUTT, RAM KISHAN SAINI, S.K.PURI, SANGEETA CHANDRA, VIJAY SHARMA

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963

       Sections 6 & 9 - Dispossession of trespasser - Eviction of unauthorised occupant by DDA from the land owned by it by demolishing the existing structure - Suit by occupant claiming to be unlawfully dispossessed without due process of law - No right of plaintiff in the suit property - DDA never transferred the right or possession of suit property to any person - Plaintiff can not claim to be in settled possession - Decree dismissing the suit affirmed.


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) DEALING with possession, in Chapter 9, Salmond On Jurisprudence (12th Edition), states that few relationships are as vital to man as that of possession, and we may expect any system of law, however primitive, to provide rules for its protection. Possession of material things is essential to life, it is the most basic relationship between men and things.

( 2 ) ELABORATING the concept of possession, at Page 266, the learned author has opined:-

"but the concept of possession is as difficult to define as it is essential to protect. In the first place, possession is an abstract notion and involves the same sort of difficulties, which we have seen to arise with other abstract terms such as "law" and "rule". There is nothing which we can point at and identify as possession in the same way as we can do with concrete things such as tables and chairs. Moreover, it is an abstract term to which the traditional type of definition is as inappropriate as we saw it to be for the term "rule". Just as we could not locate the notion of a rule within some wider class of concepts, so too with possession we cannot define it by placing it in a wider class and then distinguishing it from other members of the class; for possession is, it would seem, is a class of its own. A second cause of difficulty is the fact that possession is not purely a legal concept. Our discussion of ownership showed that possession differs from ownership in that the former is of temporary duration whereas the latter is of a more permanent, ultimate and residuary nature. But possession differs from ownership in another quite different respect. Ownership, as we saw, consists of a combination of legal rights, some or all of which may be present in any particular instance; and such rights imply the existence of legal rules and a system of law. With possession this is not so. A possessor is not so much one who has certain rights as one who actually has possession. Whether a person has ownership depends on rules of law; whether he has possession is a question that could be answered as a matter of fact and without reference to law at all. The notion of possession has application in a pre-legal society, and even perhaps outside society altogether. Of course in so far as statements about possession are statements of law, then they imply the existence of that law, but the existence of possession is independent of, and prior to, that of law. Whereas ownership is strictly a legal concept, possession is both a legal and a non-legal or pre-legal concept. "

( 3 ) AT Page 274, the learned author has opined that in a civilized society some protection of possession is essential. There are two methods of protecting the possession. Firstly, the possessor can be given certain legal rights, such as a right to continue in possession free from interference by others. Secondly, the law can protect possession by prescribing criminal penalties for wrongful interference and wrongful dispossession.

( 4 ) IN relation to the former. e. , the first method by which law can protect possession, the learned author opines that the possessory right in rem can be supported by various sanctioning rights in personam against those who violate the possessor's right: he can be given a right to recover compensation for interference and for dispossession, and a right to have his possession restored to him.

( 5 ) THE learned author goes on to explain that whenever such remedies are invoked, it will be important to ascertain whether a person invoking them actually has any possession to be protected. Consequently, a legal criteria has to be evolved to determine whether a person is in possession of an object.

( 6 ) BUT, legal concept of possession is not restricted to the commonsense concept of possession, namely physical control. Possession in fact is not a simple notion. The question whether in fact a person is in possession of an article depends on various factors such as the nature of t


































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top